BitBit Online - http://www.bitbit.online.pt
A sua loja de acessórios para informática.
Newsletter 01/05 - 2002
Novidades:
- A todos os clientes que efectuem uma encomenda de valor igual ou superior a
50 euros ofereceremos uma magnifica antena interna para o seu telemovel que
aumenta drasticame
I think the Debian Java policy, as currently stated, is slightly flawed,
as it tries to satisfy two goals that aren't completely orthogonal:
1) To get as much free Java software into Debian as possible, that runs
without non-free software (eg. without Sun's JDK)
2) To put together a distrib
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 06:22:30PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
> Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
> under gcj so that th
On Monday 13 May 2002 03:22, Jim Pick wrote:
> Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
> under gcj so that this could that
> "Rick" == Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[long sequence of valid comments about JCK elided]
Rick> In the meantime, efforts such as this packaging policy would
Rick> do well to keep the definitions straight. To say things
Rick> like "native code != Java" and then base
> "Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> HELL NO!
Why don't you tell us how you really feel, Adam :)
--
Stephen
"If I claimed I was emporer just cause some moistened bint lobbed a
scimitar at me they'd put me away"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> Well I do not really understand this. Java code is supposed to be
> portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> java program and should not be packaged as a such. Non java
> components should be extracted to a separate package IMHO.
I'm staying out
BitBit Online - http://www.bitbit.online.pt
A sua loja de acessórios para informática.
Newsletter 01/05 - 2002
Novidades:
- A todos os clientes que efectuem uma encomenda de valor igual ou superior a 50 euros
ofereceremos uma magnifica antena interna para o seu telemovel que aumenta
dr
I think the Debian Java policy, as currently stated, is slightly flawed,
as it tries to satisfy two goals that aren't completely orthogonal:
1) To get as much free Java software into Debian as possible, that runs
without non-free software (eg. without Sun's JDK)
2) To put together a distri
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 17:16, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> > package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> > unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a "wishlist" bug filed against
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 18:29, Per Bothner wrote:
> Jim Pick wrote:
> > Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> > for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> > compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
> > under
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Per Bothner wrote:
> Also, what happens if you install a Java package, and then install
> gcj later? Shuld that so the compilation to .so when you install
> gcj?
Each emacs extension packages places hooks into a site-wide dir. Then, all
the emacsen are processed over each f
On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
> Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
> under gcj so that this could that work?
Let m
Jim Pick wrote:
Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
under gcj so that this could that work?
I think it would be too slow.
> > There are many other free JVMs now: ORP, KissMe, etc...
>
> I am not very happy with trying to compile some Java code (e.g. Jmol
> jmol.sf.net) with every free JVM to see wether it can be done with that...
You should only have to compile the class files once (the classes should
still work,
Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
under gcj so that this could that work?
Granted, the emacs solution is currently a bit
Adam Heath wrote:
I've got a makefile based build system, that supports jdk-like jvms(kaffe,
sun, blackdown, ibm), and gcj(which has a different cmdline format).
Kawa (http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa) includes both an ant buildfile,
and an autotools-based (automake+autoconf+libtool) system. The l
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew> No it's not. But you can use the gcj produced .so files
> Andrew> with gcj. If I do all my Java development with gcj,
> Andrew> Debian packages cont
> "Rick" == Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[long sequence of valid comments about JCK elided]
Rick> In the meantime, efforts such as this packaging policy would
Rick> do well to keep the definitions straight. To say things
Rick> like "native code != Java" and then bas
> "Adam" == Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> HELL NO!
Why don't you tell us how you really feel, Adam :)
--
Stephen
"If I claimed I was emporer just cause some moistened bint lobbed a
scimitar at me they'd put me away"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> Ok, then it is just a question of naming. Say my foo library can be
> compiled to .class files and GCJ .so files. One option is to
> package both in libfoo-java, which would be architecture specific.
> But if you want to split them into an architectur
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> And the same for gcj? Is there an easy way to port a Ant based compilation
> to some Makefile like stuff for compiling with gcj? Is there a good tutorial
> on it somewhere?
I've got a makefile based build system, that supports jdk-like jvms(kaffe,
su
On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
> Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a "wishlist" bug filed against kaffe
> stating how it fails. I suppose that goes for t
On 12 May 2002, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> 2.5. Main, contrib or non-free
>
>
>
> If your binary package can run only with non-free virtual machines
> (the only free Java virtual machine seems to be kaffe - and the one
> included in libgcj), it cannot go to main. If your package itself is
>
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> Well I do not really understand this. Java code is supposed to be
> portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> java program and should not be packaged as a such. Non java
> components should be extracted to a separate package IMHO.
I'm staying ou
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> No it's not. But you can use the gcj produced .so files
Andrew> with gcj. If I do all my Java development with gcj,
Andrew> Debian packages containing Java libraries compiled to
Andrew> .so's are very useful to m
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 04:28:56PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew> To clarify, I'm talking about Java code compiled (eg, by
> Andrew> gcj) into architecture-specific machine code. These
> Andrew> libraries are still
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 17:16, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> > package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> > unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a "wishlist" bug filed agains
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 18:29, Per Bothner wrote:
> Jim Pick wrote:
> > Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> > for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> > compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
> > unde
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> To clarify, I'm talking about Java code compiled (eg, by
Andrew> gcj) into architecture-specific machine code. These
Andrew> libraries are still meant to be used by Java code (also
Andrew> compiled with gcj), not
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Per Bothner wrote:
> Also, what happens if you install a Java package, and then install
> gcj later? Shuld that so the compilation to .so when you install
> gcj?
Each emacs extension packages places hooks into a site-wide dir. Then, all
the emacsen are processed over each
On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
> Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
> under gcj so that this could that work?
Let
Jim Pick wrote:
> Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
> under gcj so that this could that work?
I think it would be
> > There are many other free JVMs now: ORP, KissMe, etc...
>
> I am not very happy with trying to compile some Java code (e.g. Jmol
> jmol.sf.net) with every free JVM to see wether it can be done with that...
You should only have to compile the class files once (the classes should
still work
Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
under gcj so that this could that work?
Granted, the emacs solution is currently a bi
Adam Heath wrote:
> I've got a makefile based build system, that supports jdk-like jvms(kaffe,
> sun, blackdown, ibm), and gcj(which has a different cmdline format).
Kawa (http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa) includes both an ant buildfile,
and an autotools-based (automake+autoconf+libtool) system.
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew> No it's not. But you can use the gcj produced .so files
> Andrew> with gcj. If I do all my Java development with gcj,
> Andrew> Debian packages con
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> Ok, then it is just a question of naming. Say my foo library can be
> compiled to .class files and GCJ .so files. One option is to
> package both in libfoo-java, which would be architecture specific.
> But if you want to split them into an architectu
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> And the same for gcj? Is there an easy way to port a Ant based compilation
> to some Makefile like stuff for compiling with gcj? Is there a good tutorial
> on it somewhere?
I've got a makefile based build system, that supports jdk-like jvms(kaffe,
s
On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
> Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a "wishlist" bug filed against kaffe
> stating how it fails. I suppose that goes for
On 12 May 2002, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> 2.5. Main, contrib or non-free
>
>
>
> If your binary package can run only with non-free virtual machines
> (the only free Java virtual machine seems to be kaffe - and the one
> included in libgcj), it cannot go to main. If your package itself is
>
> "Egon" == Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Egon> And the same for gcj? Is there an easy way to port a Ant based
Egon> compilation to some Makefile like stuff for compiling with gcj?
Egon> Is there a good tutorial on it somewhere?
In theory you should be able to use `gij' as a dr
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> No it's not. But you can use the gcj produced .so files
Andrew> with gcj. If I do all my Java development with gcj,
Andrew> Debian packages containing Java libraries compiled to
Andrew> .so's are very useful to
> "Heiko" == Heiko Garrelts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Heiko> I'm both new to Debian and Java. I wanted to learn Java with a
Heiko> free VM and compiler. But which one should I choose?
It depends on your needs.
Heiko> Which of these possibilities is the best one if you are a Java
Heiko> beg
> > If the Java code depends on code written in a "native" language
> > (eg, via JNI), the compiled .class files should be delivered in
> > an "Architecture: all" package that depends on an
> > architecture-specific package containing the compiled native
> > code.
> Looks like t
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 04:28:56PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew> To clarify, I'm talking about Java code compiled (eg, by
> Andrew> gcj) into architecture-specific machine code. These
> Andrew> libraries are still
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:31:43PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 22:00, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > Ok, then it is just a question of naming. Say my foo library can be
> > compiled to .class files and GCJ .so files. One option is to
> > package both in libfoo-java, which wo
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Java code is supposed to be
> > portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> > java program and should not be packaged as a such.
>
> You've been listening to too much Sun marketing. :-)
>
> Please give a
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> To clarify, I'm talking about Java code compiled (eg, by
Andrew> gcj) into architecture-specific machine code. These
Andrew> libraries are still meant to be used by Java code (also
Andrew> compiled with gcj), not
Hello!
> From: Andrew Pimlott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 11:10 PM
> > Non java
> > components should be extracted to a separate package IMHO.
> Ok, but I think you should make that explicit in the policy.
> Something like,
>
> If the Java code depends on code writt
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:31:43PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 22:00, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > I disagree on that class files should be placed in a -dev package for the
> > > same reason as I want every
On Sunday 12 May 2002 22:00, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > I disagree on that class files should be placed in a -dev package for the
> > same reason as I want every jar file to be placed in /usr/share/java
> > (maybe with an exception for
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I disagree on that class files should be placed in a -dev package for the
> same reason as I want every jar file to be placed in /usr/share/java
> (maybe with an exception for jvm:s). You should always be allowed
> to use the classes
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:05:55PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:32, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:11, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > > Only if your binary package can run with fre
On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:32, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:11, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > Only if your binary package can run with free virtual machines (like
> > > kaffe, libgcj, ORP and KissMe), it may go i
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 03:10:25PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Java code is supposed to be
> > portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> > java program and should not be packaged as a such.
>
> You've b
> "Egon" == Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Egon> And the same for gcj? Is there an easy way to port a Ant based
Egon> compilation to some Makefile like stuff for compiling with gcj?
Egon> Is there a good tutorial on it somewhere?
In theory you should be able to use `gij' as a d
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:11, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > Only if your binary package can run with free virtual machines (like kaffe,
> > libgcj, ORP and KissMe), it may go into main. Otherwise, it must go into
> > non-free, or in c
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Java code is supposed to be
> portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> java program and should not be packaged as a such.
You've been listening to too much Sun marketing. :-)
Please give a rational reason
> "Heiko" == Heiko Garrelts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Heiko> I'm both new to Debian and Java. I wanted to learn Java with a
Heiko> free VM and compiler. But which one should I choose?
It depends on your needs.
Heiko> Which of these possibilities is the best one if you are a Java
Heiko> be
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 02:45:24PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/policy.html
>
> The following,
>
> Both are shipped as Java bytecode (*.class files, packaged in a
> *.jar
On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:11, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> Only if your binary package can run with free virtual machines (like kaffe,
> libgcj, ORP and KissMe), it may go into main. Otherwise, it must go into
> non-free, or in contrib if your package itself is free.
Better:
Only if your binary packa
On Sunday 12 May 2002 17:11, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your binary package can run only with non-free virtual machines
> (the only free Java virtual machine seems to be kaffe - and the one
> included in libgcj), it cannot go to main. If your package i
> > If the Java code depends on code written in a "native" language
> > (eg, via JNI), the compiled .class files should be delivered in
> > an "Architecture: all" package that depends on an
> > architecture-specific package containing the compiled native
> > code.
> Looks like
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/policy.html
The following,
Both are shipped as Java bytecode (*.class files, packaged in a
*.jar archive) and with an "Architecture: all" since Java
bytecode is supposed t
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:31:43PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 22:00, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > Ok, then it is just a question of naming. Say my foo library can be
> > compiled to .class files and GCJ .so files. One option is to
> > package both in libfoo-java, which w
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Java code is supposed to be
> > portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> > java program and should not be packaged as a such.
>
> You've been listening to too much Sun marketing. :-)
>
> Please give a
Hello!
> From: Andrew Pimlott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 11:10 PM
> > Non java
> > components should be extracted to a separate package IMHO.
> Ok, but I think you should make that explicit in the policy.
> Something like,
>
> If the Java code depends on code wri
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:31:43PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 22:00, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > I disagree on that class files should be placed in a -dev package for the
> > > same reason as I want ever
On Sunday 12 May 2002 22:00, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > I disagree on that class files should be placed in a -dev package for the
> > same reason as I want every jar file to be placed in /usr/share/java
> > (maybe with an exception fo
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I disagree on that class files should be placed in a -dev package for the
> same reason as I want every jar file to be placed in /usr/share/java
> (maybe with an exception for jvm:s). You should always be allowed
> to use the classes
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:05:55PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:32, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:11, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > > Only if your binary package can run with fr
On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:32, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:11, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > Only if your binary package can run with free virtual machines (like
> > > kaffe, libgcj, ORP and KissMe), it may go
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 03:10:25PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Java code is supposed to be
> > portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> > java program and should not be packaged as a such.
>
> You've
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:11, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > Only if your binary package can run with free virtual machines (like kaffe,
> > libgcj, ORP and KissMe), it may go into main. Otherwise, it must go into
> > non-free, or in
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Java code is supposed to be
> portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> java program and should not be packaged as a such.
You've been listening to too much Sun marketing. :-)
Please give a rational reason
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 02:45:24PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/policy.html
>
> The following,
>
> Both are shipped as Java bytecode (*.class files, packaged in a
> *.jar
On Sunday 12 May 2002 21:11, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> Only if your binary package can run with free virtual machines (like kaffe,
> libgcj, ORP and KissMe), it may go into main. Otherwise, it must go into
> non-free, or in contrib if your package itself is free.
Better:
Only if your binary pack
On Sunday 12 May 2002 17:11, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your binary package can run only with non-free virtual machines
> (the only free Java virtual machine seems to be kaffe - and the one
> included in libgcj), it cannot go to main. If your package
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/policy.html
The following,
Both are shipped as Java bytecode (*.class files, packaged in a
*.jar archive) and with an "Architecture: all" since Java
bytecode is supposed
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 08:23:53AM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
*SNIP*
> Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a "wishlist" bug filed against kaffe
> stating how it
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 08:11, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > When we now have (almost) got woody out of the door I think it
> > is time to give the Proposed Java Policy a more official state
> > (i.e. not proposed anymore).
> >
> > It is avai
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> When we now have (almost) got woody out of the door I think it
> is time to give the Proposed Java Policy a more official state
> (i.e. not proposed anymore).
>
> It is available at:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 08:23:53AM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
*SNIP*
> Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> unimplemented APIs, etc), there was a "wishlist" bug filed against kaffe
> stating how it
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 08:11, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > When we now have (almost) got woody out of the door I think it
> > is time to give the Proposed Java Policy a more official state
> > (i.e. not proposed anymore).
> >
> > It is ava
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> When we now have (almost) got woody out of the door I think it
> is time to give the Proposed Java Policy a more official state
> (i.e. not proposed anymore).
>
> It is available at:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/
86 matches
Mail list logo
