On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:10:10PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Oct 21, David Starner wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote: > > > With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this > > > case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in contrib nor in non-free. > > > > It can be placed in contrib. "free packages which require ... packages > > which are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution" > > (interesting that it can't require a package in non-us, but it can > > require one not in the archive.) > > FWIW, OpenOffice will install and run without Java on the system, at > least if you use the binaries at openoffice.org. There's no reason > why we can't have a separate openoffice-java in contrib for people > that want the Java support.
According to Peter, they won't build without a version of Java we don't have in the archive, even in non-free. So the whole thing has to go into contrib and be manually built on each system. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less." - "Disciple", Stuart Davis
