[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Unstable/Java/Mozilla

On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 00:11, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 05:19:28PM -0700, Gary Hennigan wrote:
> > I just realized that due to the fact that Mozilla, and it's
> > descendents, in unstable, is now being built with the 3.2 compilers
> > I'm stuck without a useable Java plugin. Anyone have a solution to
> > this? I've been using the 1.4 *.debs from Blackdown, but those appear
> > to have been compiled with 2.9x compilers and so I'm getting
> > unresolved symbols when I try to load up pages that require the Java
> > plugin, and Galeon crashes 
> > 
> > There's a "resolved" bug filed against Mozilla which seems to indicate
> > that the maintainer doesn't consider it a problem.
> > 
> > Any word on a Java2 JDK being compiled with 3.2 compilers?
> I was almost certain it had been rebuilt just after gcc 3.2 became the
> default compiler in sid.  Are you sure you're up to date?

I just stumbled upon some instructions last night for building the JDK
from scratch and am waiting for it to finish compiling right now. This
resolves any issues with compiler versions, etc. Here's the URL for the


The instructions are all rather straightforward. You download a few
packages, apply a few patches, and prune the source tree a bit and then
run make. Altogether, you're looking at about 10 minutes of work. The
compilation time is a bit hefty though. The author says it takes about 4
hours on a PIII-800.

Be warned that you'll need to have plenty of free space. I started the
compilation last night and woke up today to find it "finished".
Unfortunately, I ran out of disk space in the process so now I'm having
to recompile. :) My build directory right now is 632 MB. Good luck. :)

Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: