-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Koch wrote: [...] | Yeah, basing on GCJ 4.0 and providing native Eclipse by default looks | like a very goode idea. As this means we need to compile java to | bytecode/jars first with well get support for non-native runtimes for | free. I'm willing to invest my time test it with most available free | VMs. Non-free VMs can and should be supported too but they should not be | top priority.
Sounds great to me.
|>>III. Choosing An Initial Source Version |>>~ There has been some talk about this on IRC #debian-java of late, and |>>the consensus seems to be that going with 3.1 as an initial version is a |>>good idea. I personally endorse this, as I assisted on a bug report |>>with Eclipse[3] that enables a successful build on PowerPC Linux with |>>GTK. Prior to the 3.1 development stream, this build was very broken. |>>Starting with anything prior to 3.1 will require us to fix/patch quite a |>>bit of stuff that has been remediated in the 3.1 stream. |> |>That's fine with me. I missed my goal for Ubuntu Hoary, which was my |>main reason for wanting a stable release anyways. I assume 3.1 will be |>released before next October. =) | | | I really hope that we have a mostly stable Eclipse packaged some time | before that date. I run Eclipse 3.1 from the integration snapshots with several free and one commercial plug-in without issue. I am sure we'll have something pretty solid, and us free java folks are all too familiar/comfortable with packaging/running from CVS snapshots. ;-)
- -- Barry Hawkins All Things Computed site: www.alltc.com weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
Registered Linux User #368650 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLLOk7bZ6kUftWZwRAtUzAJ4vlIFdpQBaOBKDY+R5bPT9YtgJLgCfRmBK 1UFWPDbwC1LGLz1EAXpbTeo= =lOIf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
