This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 49192 - [j2se-co] Can't install JDK if NB IDE is already installed
Summary: [j2se-co] Can't install JDK if NB IDE is already installed
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: installer
Classification: Unclassified
Component: JDK bundle (show other bugs)
Version: 4.x
Hardware: PC Windows ME/2000
: P4 blocker (vote)
Assignee: mslama
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-09-17 09:58 UTC by dmladek
Modified: 2004-09-23 16:01 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description dmladek 2004-09-17 09:58:15 UTC 
Current DEV (4.0)
==================

I've found  that executing jdk-nb bundle installer
doesn't allow me install only JDK if I have
previously installed NB IDE (in the default path)

Vice-versa it's working: 
If I have installed JDK1.5 and start jdk-nb bundle
installer then JDK installation is skipped and
only NetBeans are installed.


It's not serrious so P4 is quite enought high
priority, but deffinitely it's bug of installer
where are bundled 2 products.
Comment 1 mslama 2004-09-17 10:21:57 UTC 
Should we support such use case at all?
Comment 2 dmladek 2004-09-17 10:47:48 UTC 
I don't know :-) It's question for "NB marketing" (if exists).
Thus P4. From my point of view (quality & functionality) it is bug.
Comment 3 mslama 2004-09-20 14:13:43 UTC 
So who will decide this? (Fix/won't fix.)
Comment 4 Martin Balin 2004-09-20 14:42:18 UTC 
I don't expect this to be scenario used too often. If the user has 
already NB 4.0 installed then why she will download big bundle 
installer if just J2SE will serve her needs. Primary purpose of 
bundle is to give Java developers NetBeans IDE which is a complete 
developer set with Java.
Comment 5 Petr Blaha 2004-09-23 16:01:28 UTC 
We don't support this case.