![]() > whether that change also really caused LO to not even support (Oracle) JDKs > some version of LO (5.1, as you say), LO only supports (Oracle) JDKs, no > I'm not sure whether that answers my question. ![]() (In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #10) (I myself don't have such an old OS X available.) Can you confirm it? Hence, my question whether anybody can actually confirm that. However, what I'm unsure about is whether that change also really caused LO to not even support (Oracle) JDKs on old versions of OS X (10,8, 10.9), or whether that's an unproven claim. ![]() I do understand that, since some version of LO (5.1, as you say), LO only supports (Oracle) JDKs, no longer any plain (Apple, Oracle) JREs. I'm not sure whether that answers my question. > No support for Apple JRE or Oracle JRE - just the JDK. ![]() > So, through 5.0, if Apples Java 1.6 is present, a JRE 1.8 will be detected > It is old NOTOURBUG bug 74877 - and Oracle's Java runtime collision with > Can anybody actually confirm that on OS X 10.8 or 10,9 an installation of an > I'm a bit confused by the history of this bug and bug 94716 it got cloned > (In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #8) (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #9)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |