Hi folks,
I am also a lurker and fairly new to the Java-debian scene(watching
the mailing list for a number of months). I am by profession an
engineer and have worked startups for the last 15 years.
Perhaps the question of a "Debian Java Policy" might be handled as
part of the creation of a no
Yeah, I'd have to admit that "java versions of find/ls/posix.1" don't
interest me at all (or any more than, for example, Ada95 or Forth
versions do. A little less, because Ada95 ports are at least likely
to be more accurate implementations of their specs, a mostly
psychological advantage...)
My "
> Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
Stephane> On Friday 10 September 1999, at 10 h 2, the keyboard of
Stephane> David Warnock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a) often need newer versions than have been packaged eg we had problems
>> with jdk1.1.7 and are now using jdk1.1.7b which is n
> Cris J Holdorph writes:
Cris> I mostly lurk on debian-java, because I have an interest in both.
Cris> However, I have no immediate hope of those two ever meeting. If
Cris> they do, great. If not, I'll continue to install the JDK and Jserv
Cris> myself.
At least potato has
Bernd Kreimeier Writes:
> Of course, your goals might differ, and with a different
> roadmap, a different policy makes sense. The question I
> tried to ask when the policy proposal came up originally
> was: what is your vision of "Java in Debian"? Is it just
> a bunch of packages to put somewhere,
Cris J. Holdorph writes:
> Bernd Kreimeier Writes:
> > When we can implement find etc. in pure Java, and create
> > ELF as well as a bytecode from the same Java source using
> > the basis to formulate a policy, or even plot a roadmap on how
> > Java could make binary-all grow and shrink binar
David Warnock wrote:
>
> Stephane (sorry no accent on the e),
>
> I have not been following the discussions on the policy very closely but
> I have a query.
>
> We are developing java applications on Debian. But we are not using the
> standard debian packages for jdk, jre or jikes. The reason is
On Thursday 9 September 1999, at 12 h 21, the keyboard of Bernd Kreimeier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- defining a Java equivalent to libc
> (collection of utility classes shared among Java "binaries")
Isn't it java.lang.* ?
>- a free compiler to convert pure Java source or "bina
On Friday 10 September 1999, at 10 h 2, the keyboard of David Warnock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) often need newer versions than have been packaged eg we had problems
> with jdk1.1.7 and are now using jdk1.1.7b which is not packaged in
> potato.
IMHO, this should be a bug/wishlist against th
Stephane (sorry no accent on the e),
I have not been following the discussions on the policy very closely but
I have a query.
We are developing java applications on Debian. But we are not using the
standard debian packages for jdk, jre or jikes. The reason is that we
a) often need newer version
10 matches
Mail list logo
