Hi, On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 21:22 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I was confused too as I saw that one of the bugs has been fixed time ago - I > > suspect it could be a similar bug, but slightly different. I'm working to get a > > stack trace and post to the issue list at launchpad. > > I am pretty sure it is that old issue. b09 is just really, really old > (April 2008). And the patch that added the new color profile support was > added after it was released. Current icedtea/openjdk is 1.2+hg/b11, > although fedora actually packages a slightly newer version (we should > release 1.3 for real I guess). The 1.2/b10 version was the version that > formally passed the TCK on x86/x86_64 fedora 9. Actually that is wrong, the binary rpm that passed the TCK was java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-0.15.b09.fc9.x86_64 (and the x86 variant). So "b09" without the actual icedtea revision number doesn't tell the whole story unfortunately. We should probably try to make the distributions include the icedtea patch level since we do include lots of bug fixes and extra compatibility fixes on top of the bare openjdk bxx drops. Cheers, Mark -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
