On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 03:30:07PM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> While we are at it: I already expressed my dislike for the naming scheme
> in the policy (lib-X-java) which is taken from C libraries. I propose to
> use the scheme from Phyton instead (java-X). What do other people think
> about this?
"Ean R . Schuessler" wrote:
> The best advice is perhaps to follow what policy actually states as
> the technique for dealing with programs that require an environment
> setting, a wrapper script. It is fairly trivial (1 line of shell code)
> to read in a list of configured classpaths from a folde
Stefan Gybas wrote:
>Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
>> >Package: libpgjava (contrib)
>> >Maintainer: Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > 45549 libpgjava: doesn't work at all
>>
>> Would anyone like to take this package? I can't get it to work; I don't
>> use Java and it is separate
Comments:
1) The global CLASSPATH environmental variable never worked for me. I have too
many different versions of JVMs (blackdown, ibm, kaffe, 1.1, 1.2) that
I generally always set up an application-specific classpath within an
application-specific invocation script.
2) Even application-specif
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> >Package: libpgjava (contrib)
> >Maintainer: Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 45549 libpgjava: doesn't work at all
>
> Would anyone like to take this package? I can't get it to work; I don't
> use Java and it is separated from the rest of PostgreSQL because of its
BugScan reporter wrote:
>Bug stamp-out list for Nov 5 03:06 (CST)
>
>Total number of release-critical bugs: 258
>Package: libpgjava (contrib)
>Maintainer: Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 45549 libpgjava: doesn't work at all
Would anyone like to take this package? I can't ge
I agree with most of your ideas, but I guess it's better to separate the
classpath required for the vm's, libraries and 'applications' (in the meaning
of java programs with main classes). The idea is to create a dependency system
for the classpaths definitions.
As an example, assume the follow
On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 05:11:20PM -0800, Tim Wilkinson wrote:
> Do you really think 1.0.5 is less stable than 1.0b4? 1.0.5 contains lots
> of new stuff which might be unstable - but I still think it's more stable
> over all (I can certainly run a lot more stuff with it).
The native threads stuff
I have been giving a lot of thought to the policy that Stephane has
proposed. While I certainly appreciate the sentiment that has caused
him to push for adoption so strongly I still am not wholly satisfied
with the direction of his efforts.
I do understand that Debian policy discourages the concep
9 matches
Mail list logo
