Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 325555

Summary:

Remove or weaken the Java 1.6u21 Clickthrough warning message for windows

Product:

[Eclipse Project] Platform

Reporter:

Martin Oberhuber <mober.at+eclipse>

Component:

Releng

Assignee:

Kim Moir <kim.moir>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

QA Contact:

Severity:

normal

Priority:

CC:

aniefer, daniel_megert, kim.moir, remy.suen

Version:

3.6.1

Target Milestone:

3.7 M3

Hardware:

OS:

Windows All

Whiteboard:

Bug Depends on:

319871

Bug Blocks:

Attachments:

Description	Flags
patch	none

Description Martin Oberhuber

2010-09-17 04:49:14 EDT

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #319871 +++

I was just about to download the 3.6.1 build (M20100909-0800) and noticed that the Java 1.6u21 clickthrough is still there.

I believe that this 

 - should be removed from the 3.6.x and 3.7 builds, since bug 320005 has been
   fixed by Andrew so this cannot happen any more

 - should be removed or weakened from the 3.3 - 3.6 pages since the problem
   was only temporary with the 1.6.0_21-b06 build and resolved by Oracle with
   the 1.6.0_21-b07 build. See the FAQ text linked to by the main Eclipse
   download pages as per bug 319868:
   http://wiki.eclipse.org/FAQ_How_do_I_run_Eclipse%3F#Oracle.2FSun_VM_1.6.0_21_on_Windows

Note that a similar clickthrough may be needed again when Java 7 comes out. Andrew, do you consider the bug 320005 solution permanent or are you thinking about a better solution moving forward?

Comment 1 Kim Moir

2010-09-17 09:48:19 EDT

Created attachment 179113 [details]
patch

Comment 2 Kim Moir

2010-09-17 09:55:04 EDT

I've fixed this in the 3.6.1 candidate build, the 3.6 build and the R3_6_maintenance and HEAD streams of org.eclipse.releng.  I'll leave the 3.3-3.5.x messages for now.  They will need to be updated with a new message when Oracle changes the name in the VM for Java 7.

Comment 3 John Arthorne

2010-09-17 11:11:34 EDT

(In reply to comment #0)
> Andrew, do you consider the bug 320005 solution permanent or are you thinking
> about a better solution moving forward?

Bug 321390 has been opened to consider other solutions.