On Sunday 11 December 2005 06:12, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > My experience has been that the binary version of the JDK has never
> > given any trouble when used to compile packages that rely on a JDK.
> > YMMV.
>
> I use the source-built version only when it's as new as the released
> binary. In between binary release and source release, I used the new
> binary for that couple of weeks waiting last time. I would be doing the
> same now except for wating on cable (Week of Jan 8th I'm told now...56k
> is killing me, I can't wait).
>
I was only commenting on an issue, which I didn't fully understand from a
while back where using the binary version of JDK would not work with KDE
plug-ins due to differences in the toolchain between what Sun was using and
LFS. This was around the 3.6 era and was high-lighted and well commented in
the BLFS book ATT.
I'm still running that version, and all I know is that the binary JDK let me
install the binary OOo, and play with Java, but Konqueror's Java plug-in
isn't compatible with it. But I don't miss java when I'm browsing, I don't
like java that much anyway.
I knew that this situation has changed in the intervening times, but just
mentioned it in case this issue crops up again.
Cheers,
John Gay
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
