openoffice fun

DJ Lucas dj at
Fri Apr 15 16:36:59 PDT 2005

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/15/05 17:02 CST:
>>Yes, I believe I should have rephased that question a bit to say 'why
>>the rush?' The above answer should stand to answer either, however,
>>gcc-3.3 is not required as long as gcc is not 3.4.0 or 3.4.1, though I'd
>>like to get 1.5 done when possilbe as well.
> Because I cannot determine exactly what you mean, are you saying that
> the 1.4.2 version of the JDK will compile okay with GCC-3.4.3 (LFS-6.1
> version)? I never even thought to try it.

Yes, the patch name is another from the old sytle names.  j2sdk-1.4.2
suffers from the gcc reinterpret_cast problem introduced in
3.4.0...fixed in gcc-3.4.2.

It should be renamed as the jdk-1.5.0-gcc-3.4.2+-2.patch was.

-- DJ Lucas

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list