[csw-maintainers] Java... again!

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi James,

Am 08.11.2008 um 17:06 schrieb James Lee:
> On 08/11/08, 15:40:29, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote  
> regarding
> Re: [csw-maintainers] Java... again!:
>
>>   jdk5-1.5.0_15,REV=2008.11.08-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
>>   jdk5-1.5.0_15,REV=2008.11.08-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
>>   jdk6-6u7,REV=2008.11.08-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
>>   jdk6-6u7,REV=2008.11.08-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
>
> Latest 1.5 is Update 16
> http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index_jdk5.jsp
>
> The latest 1.6 is Update 10.
> http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp

I got them from the archive page. Who can imagine
archived versions would be old? Me??? Oh well...
Heres some warmed up Java in
   <http://buildfarm.opencsw.org/testing.html>:

jre13-1.3.1_22,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
jre13-1.3.1_22,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
jre14-1.4.2_17,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
jre14-1.4.2_17,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
jre5-1.5.0_16,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
jre5-1.5.0_16,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
jre6-1.6.0_10,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
jre6-1.6.0_10,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz

jdk13-1.3.1_22,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
jdk13-1.3.1_22,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
jdk14-1.4.2_17,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
jdk14-1.4.2_17,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
jdk5-1.5.0_16,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
jdk5-1.5.0_16,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
jdk6-1.6.0_10,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
jdk6-1.6.0_10,REV=2008.11.09-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz

> It identifies itself:
>
> $ java -version
> java version "1.6.0_10"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_10-b33)
> Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 11.0-b15, mixed mode)
>
> So why use break the pattern of naming, I'd expect the package to be
> identified similarly as "1.6.0_10".

I should never have followed marketing numbers. The package
now identified itself with the technical version number.

James, do you mind testing these?


Best regards

   -- Dago