> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote: >> >> I did not mean to suggest that you should remove your current java >> alternatives (default-jre-headless | java2-runtime-headless)[1]; only >> that you extended it to include java5 and java6 as well. Particularly >> all of the javaX-runtime-headless packages are virtual, so you should >> keep default-jre-headless (which is not virtual). >> >> ~Niels >> >> [1] You should of course remove java2-runtime-headless, if the plug-ins >> cannot run with java2 specification. >> >> Ah, sorry, I must have misunderstood this point in the previous email initial email, my bad. I've checked in a correction. Thanks for the pointers :D Tom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature