-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically I would appreciate a new maintainer standing up, who reads and
> participates in the debian-java mailing list. If anyone is willing to stand
> out and do the job (some peopl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically I would appreciate a new maintainer standing up, who reads and
> participates in the debian-java mailing list. If anyone is willing to stand
> out and do the job (some peop
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> Have you looked through the JVM registry proposals that I've posted to this
> list? I put up scripts on people.debian.org almost a month ago (with a post
> to this list) and nobody has signalled any problems.
I remember the thread, but skipped it at the ti
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I did not choose -version, as some jvms already have that. --flavor has a
> > a high probability of not currently being used.
>
> Confusing interaction with UK spelling. --variant?
> --simple-version-string?
That's reason enough to choose another name.
> > * Libraries must (?) have the name
> > lib[version]-java (where the version part is the necessary
> > part of the version, like libxalan2-java, not libxalan2.0.0-java).
>
> There could be a libxalan2.3-java. It depends the software. In addition,
> this means having libxalan1-java, li
(keep me in Cc: since I'm not subscribed)
Greetings fellow developers,
I'm currently (not) maintaining the Debian Java FAQ
(http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq) I just took
a look at it today and noticed there is quite some information
needed mainly:
- information on new Java pack
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> Have you looked through the JVM registry proposals that I've posted to this
> list? I put up scripts on people.debian.org almost a month ago (with a post
> to this list) and nobody has signalled any problems.
I remember the thread, but skipped it at the t
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I did not choose -version, as some jvms already have that. --flavor has a
> > a high probability of not currently being used.
>
> Confusing interaction with UK spelling. --variant?
> --simple-version-string?
That's reason enough to choose another name
(I am fairly new to this list so please forgive me if I am suggesting
something that has been discussed earlier, just point me to archives)
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 02:22:39PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > Also, it may be beneficial for java-common to register
> > .jar/.war/.ear files with /
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drop the '-' on the link target. Standard libraries do not have anything like
> that.
Don't drop the dash, think about: libmp311.jar That's confusing to
users and programs. Shared libraries do have .so., but anyway there's
no need to copy shlibs religousl
> > * Libraries must (?) have the name
> > lib[version]-java (where the version part is the necessary
> > part of the version, like libxalan2-java, not libxalan2.0.0-java).
>
> There could be a libxalan2.3-java. It depends the software. In addition,
> this means having libxalan1-java, l
(keep me in Cc: since I'm not subscribed)
Greetings fellow developers,
I'm currently (not) maintaining the Debian Java FAQ
(http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq) I just took
a look at it today and noticed there is quite some information
needed mainly:
- information on new Java pac
(I am fairly new to this list so please forgive me if I am suggesting
something that has been discussed earlier, just point me to archives)
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 02:22:39PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > Also, it may be beneficial for java-common to register
> > .jar/.war/.ear files with
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drop the '-' on the link target. Standard libraries do not have anything like
> that.
Don't drop the dash, think about: libmp311.jar That's confusing to
users and programs. Shared libraries do have .so., but anyway there's
no need to copy shlibs religous
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:06:54AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Also, it may be beneficial for java-common to register .jar/.war/.ear
> files with /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc, and provide a wrapper script for
> running these. This could keep each binary package from having to have
> its own wrapper scri
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:06:54AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Also, it may be beneficial for java-common to register .jar/.war/.ear
> files with /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc, and provide a wrapper script for
> running these. This could keep each binary package from having to have
> its own wrapper scr
Adam Heath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Bang, Steinar wrote:
[snip!]
>> does anyone know if there are unofficial 3.3 packages
>> for woody somewhere?
> I have debs, but the config has changed around quite a
> bit upstream, so I haven't even gotten to the point of
> test
Sorry for the delayed reply, but we all know how life and time come and go.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Package naming:
> ---
>
> * Java programs should be named as any ordinary debian packages.
> * Libraries must (?) have the name
> lib[version]-java (where the
18 matches
Mail list logo
