Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:01:56AM -0500, Jesse Stockall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> > >
> > > If AWT / GUI stuf
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 04:51:11PM +, Geoff Beaumont wrote:
> Jesse Stockall wrote:
> >Only packages that provide a complete JDK 1.1 class library and
> >functioning VM should provide java1-runtime. Same for java2-runtime.
> >
> >For the same reason that Microsoft does not call their VM a
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 11:34:20AM -0800, T. Alexander Popiel wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> >> I think it would make sense to define virtual packag
> > /var/lib/jboss/
> what's this for? I guess I'll find out when I poke through your
> packages (later this week).
/var/lib/jboss/deploy/, which is where deployments occur. It was g+ws jboss,
and update-jboss(a helper script) had --deploy and --undeploy cmds for users
to run as non-root.
> I think we should work to package each individually (eg. javamail) if
> possible and they fall into the above case. The jboss-contrib package
> would shrink over time. The problem with this approach is that future
> versions of jboss-contrib won't be backward compatible with earlier
> versions
> > /var/lib/jboss/
> what's this for? I guess I'll find out when I poke through your
> packages (later this week).
/var/lib/jboss/deploy/, which is where deployments occur. It was g+ws jboss,
and update-jboss(a helper script) had --deploy and --undeploy cmds for users
to run as non-root.
> I think we should work to package each individually (eg. javamail) if
> possible and they fall into the above case. The jboss-contrib package
> would shrink over time. The problem with this approach is that future
> versions of jboss-contrib won't be backward compatible with earlier
> versions
Adam Heath wrote:
jboss debs on jboss-web-container, a virtual package
jboss-jetty(does not exist) and jboss-catalina provide jboss-web-container.
That's how my 2.4 packages worked. I even made a test jboss-jetty, and even
had *both* deployed at once(I used alternatives to select the default web
Joe Phillips wrote:
I know I know, that was *only* in the name of expediency in getting *a*
package. Future packages *will* be built from source, at least my 3.2+
packages will - I'm still debating on a 3.0.5 package.
3.0.5 is well broken - go for either 3.0 head or wait a week for 3.0.6
3.2 is s
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 14:44, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> > + The setting of JAVA_HOME should be done by an auto search and/or
> > a debconf dialog.
>
> Use /etc/defaults/jboss, and if not set, have it look at standard locations
> that java debs(from blac
Adam Heath wrote:
jboss debs on jboss-web-container, a virtual package
jboss-jetty(does not exist) and jboss-catalina provide jboss-web-container.
That's how my 2.4 packages worked. I even made a test jboss-jetty, and even
had *both* deployed at once(I used alternatives to select the default w
Joe Phillips wrote:
I know I know, that was *only* in the name of expediency in getting *a*
package. Future packages *will* be built from source, at least my 3.2+
packages will - I'm still debating on a 3.0.5 package.
3.0.5 is well broken - go for either 3.0 head or wait a week for 3.0.6
3.
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 14:48, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> > Are you saying that the non-tomcat binary releases are
> > configured for jetty? If so, I was not aware of that. I
> > figured they were jboss without any web containers. I'll need to look
> > into this.
On 20 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by the default deployment. jboss-tomcat is
> it's own, optional package. Note that jboss-server-all and
> jboss-server-default depend on jboss-tomcat. The deployment that my
> packages install is straight out of the binary release
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
>> I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
>> (and possibly java2-swing-runtime).
>
>This is not a ba
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> + The setting of JAVA_HOME should be done by an auto search and/or
> a debconf dialog.
Use /etc/defaults/jboss, and if not set, have it look at standard locations
that java debs(from blackdown, maybe /usr/local) contain.
> + The default webconta
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 14:44, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> > + The setting of JAVA_HOME should be done by an auto search and/or
> > a debconf dialog.
>
> Use /etc/defaults/jboss, and if not set, have it look at standard locations
> that java debs(from blac
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 14:48, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> > Are you saying that the non-tomcat binary releases are
> > configured for jetty? If so, I was not aware of that. I
> > figured they were jboss without any web containers. I'll need to look
> > into this.
On 20 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by the default deployment. jboss-tomcat is
> it's own, optional package. Note that jboss-server-all and
> jboss-server-default depend on jboss-tomcat. The deployment that my
> packages install is straight out of the binary release
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
>> I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
>> (and possibly java2-swing-runtime).
>
>This is not a ba
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> + The setting of JAVA_HOME should be done by an auto search and/or
> a debconf dialog.
Use /etc/defaults/jboss, and if not set, have it look at standard locations
that java debs(from blackdown, maybe /usr/local) contain.
> + The default webconta
Joe Phillips wrote:> On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 05:00, Greg Wilkins wrote:
Your jboss debs for 3.0.2-2 deployed without problems on my
debian sid system. Good work!
+ Does it really need to depend on your jdk1.4 package?
Jboss can run on 1.3 and most debian users will have already
installed j
Jesse Stockall wrote:
Only packages that provide a complete JDK 1.1 class library and functioning VM
should provide java1-runtime. Same for java2-runtime.
For the same reason that Microsoft does not call their VM a Java VM,
Debian should not pretend that JDK 1.1 didn't include AWT.
If there is a
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 05:00, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> Your jboss debs for 3.0.2-2 deployed without problems on my
> debian sid system. Good work!
Great! thanks.
> + Does it really need to depend on your jdk1.4 package?
> Jboss can run on 1.3 and most debian users will have already
> i
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> >
> > If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> > I think it would ma
Joe Phillips wrote:> On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 05:00, Greg Wilkins wrote:
Your jboss debs for 3.0.2-2 deployed without problems on my
debian sid system. Good work!
+ Does it really need to depend on your jdk1.4 package?
Jboss can run on 1.3 and most debian users will have already
instal
Jesse Stockall wrote:
Only packages that provide a complete JDK 1.1 class library and functioning VM
should provide java1-runtime. Same for java2-runtime.
For the same reason that Microsoft does not call their VM a Java VM,
Debian should not pretend that JDK 1.1 didn't include AWT.
If there is
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 05:00, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> Your jboss debs for 3.0.2-2 deployed without problems on my
> debian sid system. Good work!
Great! thanks.
> + Does it really need to depend on your jdk1.4 package?
> Jboss can run on 1.3 and most debian users will have already
> i
Hi Dalibor,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 02:25:44AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> The stubs in classpath count for me as 2). They let
> you compile programs against the stubs, after all, and
> thus are definitely more useable than 1). I think
> this was one of the reasons the OpenOffice guys went
> ah
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> >
> > If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> > I think it would ma
Hi Dalibor,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 02:25:44AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> The stubs in classpath count for me as 2). They let
> you compile programs against the stubs, after all, and
> thus are definitely more useable than 1). I think
> this was one of the reasons the OpenOffice guys went
> ah
Hi Grzegorz,
--- "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ;) Check the japitools JDK API compatibility pages
> at
> > http://rainbow.netreach.net/~sballard/japi/
> Thanks for the link. However in this case the APIs
> are compared,
> not if they really work. There's a lot of stubs in
Your jboss debs for 3.0.2-2 deployed without problems on my
debian sid system. Good work!
But a couple of comments:
+ Does it really need to depend on your jdk1.4 package?
Jboss can run on 1.3 and most debian users will have already
installed jdk - having an extra 40MB download is a bit of
Hi Grzegorz,
--- "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ;) Check the japitools JDK API compatibility pages
> at
> > http://rainbow.netreach.net/~sballard/japi/
> Thanks for the link. However in this case the APIs
> are compared,
> not if they really work. There's a lot of stubs in
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:06:37PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
>
> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> I think it would make sen
> If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
(and possibly java2-swing-ru
Your jboss debs for 3.0.2-2 deployed without problems on my
debian sid system. Good work!
But a couple of comments:
+ Does it really need to depend on your jdk1.4 package?
Jboss can run on 1.3 and most debian users will have already
installed jdk - having an extra 40MB download is a bit
> "Grzegorz" == Grzegorz B Prokopski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Grzegorz> As for my proposals, I think I'd do it this way:
Grzegorz> 1. Define exactly what requirements must be met for JVM
Grzegorz> to be able to _legally_ provide java-virtual-machine,
Grzegorz> java*-runtime e
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:06:37PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
>
> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> I think it would make sen
> If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
(and possibly java2-swing-ru
> "Grzegorz" == Grzegorz B Prokopski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Grzegorz> As for my proposals, I think I'd do it this way:
Grzegorz> 1. Define exactly what requirements must be met for JVM
Grzegorz> to be able to _legally_ provide java-virtual-machine,
Grzegorz> java*-runtime e
41 matches
Mail list logo
