-
Bug
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
P2
-
1.4.0
-
None
-
beta2
-
sparc
-
solaris_7
>>From: Vijayan Jayaraman <###@###.###>
>>Subject: Re: linux rpm bundle
>>...
>> When I install
>> j2sdk-1_4_0-beta2-linux-rpm.bin and
>> j2re-1_4_0-beta2-linux-rpm.bin
>>
>> I get
>>
>> j2sdk-1_4_0-beta2-bin-b76-linux-15_aug_2001.rpm and
>> j2re-1_4_0-beta2-bin-b76-linux-15_aug_2001.rpm
The ".rpm" files should have the shorter "external" forms of the
names (just like the ".bin" files). We don't want internal build
dates and build numbers leaking out in this way.
Note that there's also an issue being discussed as to whether the "-linux-"
in these file names (both forms) should be "-linux-i386-" instead. I believe
the latest consensus is that it should. This sub-issue, though, is not a
high priority, and could be deferred. Just make sure Docs,
Dev Engineering, Web Engineering, and Release Engineering all agree on
whatever names being used.
>>Subject: Re: linux rpm bundle
>>...
>> When I install
>> j2sdk-1_4_0-beta2-linux-rpm.bin and
>> j2re-1_4_0-beta2-linux-rpm.bin
>>
>> I get
>>
>> j2sdk-1_4_0-beta2-bin-b76-linux-15_aug_2001.rpm and
>> j2re-1_4_0-beta2-bin-b76-linux-15_aug_2001.rpm
The ".rpm" files should have the shorter "external" forms of the
names (just like the ".bin" files). We don't want internal build
dates and build numbers leaking out in this way.
Note that there's also an issue being discussed as to whether the "-linux-"
in these file names (both forms) should be "-linux-i386-" instead. I believe
the latest consensus is that it should. This sub-issue, though, is not a
high priority, and could be deferred. Just make sure Docs,
Dev Engineering, Web Engineering, and Release Engineering all agree on
whatever names being used.