On 04/04/2008, mike scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4 Apr 2008 at 11:16, Harold Fuchs wrote: > > ... > > > > Looks as though when the jre updates, it doesn't remove old versions. > > > > > > In this case, OOo seems to be using 1.5.0_04, although the latest is > > > 1.6.0_05. Should it be safe (always??) to use the latest with OOo? > > > > > > As far as I know, yes. My OOo 2.3.1 happily uses my Java 1.6.0_05 > > > > And anyway, what's with keeping all the old versions? Wierd idea!! > > > > > > It's no business of OOo to wipe away older version(s) of Java. Also, > it's > > > No, absolutely not; I wasn't suggesting that. > > > > not really the business of a new Java to wipe away older versions of > itself > > because it doesn't have any way to tell what software might be relying > on > > > Well, maybe, or not. Things that update automatically should at least > tell the user that old versions are stacking up and offer the option. > > > > those older versions and which might break with the new version. For > > example, I seem to remember having problems with QuickTime when I > removed an > > older Java after installing a new one. > > > I'm not sure its updating scheme is any recommendation at all for > java. But that's definitely not an OOo issue.
I sort of agree with you but Java is a dependency of so many things these days that I think it's about the only possible policy. I'll have a spring clean and see what happens! Perhaps adopt a scheme of keeping current plus one old version, or something similar, unless disk space is tight. -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to [email protected]
