Broken JDK link

Randy McMurchy randy at
Sun May 11 09:29:29 PDT 2008

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 05/11/08 11:16 CST:

> We have
> can't we use that as a 'prominent place'?

Not sure as I haven't looked at the license. However, I'm writing in
to say that I'm starting to agree with DJ in that we should probably
just have binary-only instructions for the JDK. At first I thought
that we may move the binary-only instructions to the Wiki so that we
don't have a binary installation in BLFS, but we already have a few
that I know of (XML Stylesheets, JUnit, and probably more), so one
more can't hurt.

And to support many of the BLFS packages, we need a JRE.

If there are no objections, I'll create a new JDK page from the
existing one and leave the existing one in the repo should we ever
need it again.

I know that we probably shouldn't have instructions to build an
insecure JDK in the 6.3 book, but should we keep the source build
JDK in the SVN book, just in case someone does want to build it?


rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux i686]
11:23:00 up 84 days, 2:11, 1 user, load average: 0.19, 0.83, 0.81

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list