> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Alas I don't see an easy way around this. In the meantime,
Ben> java2-virtual-machine at least gives the java1.1 vs java2
Ben> distinction whilst being consistent with current policy and
Ben> not singling out any particular
On Saturday 08 September 2001 00:15, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I totally agree with your plans to change the policy to include a
> > java2-virtual-machine concept...
>
> I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
> means a
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Alas I don't see an easy way around this. In the meantime,
Ben> java2-virtual-machine at least gives the java1.1 vs java2
Ben> distinction whilst being consistent with current policy and
Ben> not singling out any particula
> I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
> means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
The idea is that much as I love the blackdown port, one wants to allow for
multiple JVMs that all offer a runtime environment that claims to be more or
less Java 2 compatible (t
Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I totally agree with your plans to change the policy to include a
> java2-virtual-machine concept...
I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
Our new packages currently provid
> I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
> means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
The idea is that much as I love the blackdown port, one wants to allow for
multiple JVMs that all offer a runtime environment that claims to be more or
less Java 2 compatible (
Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I totally agree with your plans to change the policy to include a
> java2-virtual-machine concept...
I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
Our new packages currently provi
Hi Egon,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2001 19:26, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> > > comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> > > in hearing any other proposal
> BTW, what would the correct way to change the Java policy?
Not sure. I'd do it by raising discussion on this list and filing a wishlist
bug against java-common, which contains the java policy.
But maybe I just don't know better. :)
Ben.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Friday 07 September 2001 19:26, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> > comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> > in hearing any other proposals, comments, etc.
>
> Yes, that sounds like a good idea..
On Friday 07 September 2001 15:13, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > > provide java-virtual-machine ?
> >
> > Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
> >
> > No, I mean for instanc
Hi Egon,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2001 19:26, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> > > comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> > > in hearing any other proposa
> BTW, what would the correct way to change the Java policy?
Not sure. I'd do it by raising discussion on this list and filing a wishlist
bug against java-common, which contains the java policy.
But maybe I just don't know better. :)
Ben.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECT
On Friday 07 September 2001 19:26, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> > comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> > in hearing any other proposals, comments, etc.
>
> Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
On Friday 07 September 2001 15:13, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > > provide java-virtual-machine ?
> >
> > Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
> >
> > No, I mean for instan
> How does that sound ?
Works for me. :)
b.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://baasil.humbug.org.au/bab/
Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People can be so vicious toward the imaginary world and it saddens
me. You kill a lot of little people's dreams that w
Hi Ben,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > provide java-virtual-machine ?
>
> Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
>
> No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
> j2s
> Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> provide java-virtual-machine ?
Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
j2sdk1.3 should provide both java-virtual-machine and java2-
> How does that sound ?
Works for me. :)
b.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://baasil.humbug.org.au/bab/
Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People can be so vicious toward the imaginary world and it saddens
me. You kill a lot of little people's dreams that
Hi Ben,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > provide java-virtual-machine ?
>
> Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
>
> No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
> j2
> Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> provide java-virtual-machine ?
Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
j2sdk1.3 should provide both java-virtual-machine and java2
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > java2-virtual-machine/dummy packages would help settle dependancies for non
> > Debian packaged JDK's, java2 compliant Debian packages could 'provide'
> > this. We could then 'depend' on it.
> > ,,,
> > ... perhaps we should introduce java2 in /etc/alte
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > java2-virtual-machine/dummy packages would help settle dependancies for non
> > Debian packaged JDK's, java2 compliant Debian packages could 'provide'
> > this. We could then 'depend' on it.
> > ,,,
> > ... perhaps we should introduce java2 in /etc/alt
23 matches
Mail list logo
