FyberOptic Posted September 6, 2014 Posted September 6, 2014 I thought I'd link this here in case anyone actually wants to use Java 8 update 20 or above on Minecraft 1.6.4. I included instructions for fixing Technic packs.
Kalbintion Posted September 6, 2014 Posted September 6, 2014 Interesting! Personally, I'd rather stick with Java 7 anyway since Java 8 is still being highly developed - security issues are going to be a thing until its more stable like Java 7.
FyberOptic Posted September 6, 2014 Author Posted September 6, 2014 I also use Java 7 coincidentally enough, but the problem piqued my interest enough to see if I could do anything about it. I'm sure it would be frustrating to do a fresh install on a brand new PC and then suddenly you couldn't play your favorite modpack anymore. There's no reason I can think of why modpack makers can't incorporate the fix into their 1.6.4 packs if they want, particularly on Technic and ATLauncher where Forge is per-instance.
Kalbintion Posted September 6, 2014 Posted September 6, 2014 As long as FML's GNULGPL isnt violated, shouldnt be a problem.
frostydog53 Posted September 6, 2014 Posted September 6, 2014 How do i delete java 8 to install java 7
FyberOptic Posted September 6, 2014 Author Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) It's a funny situation, because technically I released the source code to my fix in the post, as well as the instructions for how to repeat it, which should mean there's no license issue, including in its redistribution. But due to the way I did it, it's certainly not a conventional method of patching open-source code, since the original class file hasn't been recompiled, just manually added to and modified. How do i delete java 8 to install java 7 You should be able to do it from the standard add/remove programs. Then install Java 7 afterward. Edited September 6, 2014 by FyberOptic
Kalbintion Posted September 6, 2014 Posted September 6, 2014 It's a funny situation, because technically I released the source code to my fix in the post, as well as the instructions for how to repeat it, which should mean there's no license issue, including in its redistribution. But due to the way I did it, it's certainly not a conventional method of patching open-source code, since the original class file hasn't been recompiled, just manually added to and modified. Yeah, but ykno, never know if there is a licensing issue unless you know the license in which youre modifying code for should be fine though from what i know of the LGPL. Only thing they may hate on at all is the way you did it, but meh.
FyberOptic Posted September 7, 2014 Author Posted September 7, 2014 Somebody asked about 1.7.2, so I added a patch for that version as well, if anyone needs it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now