On 10 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> #2 is a bit trickier. tools.jar is needed in some cases, most notably
> servlet/jsp containers need it in order to compile JSP at runtime. My
> JBOSS packages fall into this category. tools.jar is installed
> somewhere under JAVA_HOME, JBOSS needs tools.jar
W liście z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 23:17, Dalibor Topic pisze:
> --- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz
> > B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> > > I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that
> > aside of Kaffe,
> > > the other free JVMs use
On 10 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> #2 is a bit trickier. tools.jar is needed in some cases, most notably
> servlet/jsp containers need it in order to compile JSP at runtime. My
> JBOSS packages fall into this category. tools.jar is installed
> somewhere under JAVA_HOME, JBOSS needs tools.jar
--- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz
> B. Prokopski wrote:
> > I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that
> aside of Kaffe,
> > the other free JVMs use indirectly (like gcj) or
> directly one single
> > source of it's classpath
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> Hi!
Hi again.
>
>
> I know you're the person who maitains java-common, Java Policy
> and I really admire your work you do in that area.
Thanks a lot! I appriciate it.
> In my initial mail I already proposed that "not mee
Hi!
I know you're the person who maitains java-common, Java Policy
and I really admire your work you do in that area.
In my initial mail I already proposed that "not meeting the criteria"
is just a bug, maybe even RC in some cases.
I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that aside of Ka
W liście z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 23:17, Dalibor Topic pisze:
> --- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz
> > B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> > > I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that
> > aside of Kaffe,
> > > the other free JVMs use
Hello
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 08:03:56PM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> W li?cie z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
*SNIP*
> > >
> > > I searched for "runtime" in Java Policy (as found in java-common
> > > package) and couldn't find such explict statment.
> I meant sta
--- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz
> B. Prokopski wrote:
> > I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that
> aside of Kaffe,
> > the other free JVMs use indirectly (like gcj) or
> directly one single
> > source of it's classpath
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:22:23PM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> Hi!
Hi again.
>
>
> I know you're the person who maitains java-common, Java Policy
> and I really admire your work you do in that area.
Thanks a lot! I appriciate it.
> In my initial mail I already proposed that "not mee
Hi!
I know you're the person who maitains java-common, Java Policy
and I really admire your work you do in that area.
In my initial mail I already proposed that "not meeting the criteria"
is just a bug, maybe even RC in some cases.
I don't know what 99% or what 80% is. Fact is that aside of Ka
W liście z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
> > java1-runtime
> > thanks
> >
> > W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Za
Hello
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 08:03:56PM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> W li?cie z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
*SNIP*
> > >
> > > I searched for "runtime" in Java Policy (as found in java-common
> > > package) and couldn't find such explict statment.
> I meant sta
W liście z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
> > java1-runtime
> > thanks
> >
> > W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Za
Hi
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
> java1-runtime
> thanks
>
> W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Zander pisze:
> > Package: sablevm
> > Version: 1.0.5-1
> > Severity: important
Hi
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
> java1-runtime
> thanks
>
> W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Zander pisze:
> > Package: sablevm
> > Version: 1.0.5-1
> > Severity: important
On 19 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> Yeah...I downloaded your sources at one point. Still need to read
> through your work. My packages are completely my own mess.
>
> > Unfortunately, 3.0 was a radical change, config wise, so I haven't been able
> > to make 3.0 debs yet.
>
> Well I'd be happy
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 01:42, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
>
> > how's very soon?
> >
> > you can find my packages for 3.0.2 + tomcat at
> > http://debian.innovationsw.com/
> >
> > I have plans for 3.2 next.
>
> I have jboss debs of 2.4(upto 2.4.7). All properly split.
On 10 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> how's very soon?
>
> you can find my packages for 3.0.2 + tomcat at
> http://debian.innovationsw.com/
>
> I have plans for 3.2 next.
I have jboss debs of 2.4(upto 2.4.7). All properly split. Depends on other
java debs in debian(where I can). All non-free a
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> + lobby the JBoss project to make any changes that may
> assist you with your packaging (not sure of how successful
> that will be).
Good fucking luck. JBoss upstream has been resistant to any suggestions on
how they package their dependants.
On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 22:28, Andrew Savory wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
>
> > I spent yesterday rebuilding and testing my debs. The versions
> > currently on my company site[1] have been tested to properly start/stop
> > the server without exceptions.
>
> Just been trying t
21 matches
Mail list logo
