Hi all,
whenever I start eclipse on debian unstable, it crashes due to an
"exception in native code outside the VM" with the error log attached
below. This started some days before christmas. Everything worked fine
before. I have not been able to spot the problem and don't have any more
ideas, so
Hallo Stefan,
Do you want to be included in the reply?
* Stefan Gybas wrote:
>I think you are making the same mistake as Ben here: java*-runtime just
>means the core classes, no JVM! If you need both, you need to depend on
Hm, j-v-m us a even better exapmle for a policy redesign. Is there any
Jan Schulz wrote:
* j2/1-runtime does not garantee anything *at runtime*, so it is
Right. That's exaclty the reason why I'd like to see them removed for
library packages. But I guess I have already told this... :)
useless in that respect. IMO, and that was the result of the policy
discusion
Ben Burton wrote:
Thus the *absence* of java2-runtime in the depends list is
an indication that the package should work on most JVMs in
debian. I would however expect these packages to run under
java2 as well.
In my understanding the absence of java2-runtime means that a package
that (solely) pr
Hallo Stefan, Hi Ben,
I'm just cutting in here...
* Stefan Gybas wrote:
>Ben Burton wrote:
>You still have not answered my questions about JUnit: Which package do
>you want in Debian? A stripped version without Swing GUI in main or a
>full version in contrib? Which one do you want to ship with
> I'm not familiar with jython either. What I am assuming is the
> following: that the jython ant task provides a way to write build files
> for jython projects.
What do you mean "build files for jython projects"? Do you just mean it
provides an editor with jython syntax highlighting/etc? Or do
Regarding jython and libreadline-java, I think we've had a small
communiation breakdown. What I meant is that there are packages that
do not require java2-runtime, i.e., that only use the 1.1 API.
Thus the *absence* of java2-runtime in the depends list is
an indication that the package should wor
Oh, my interests aren't entirely selfish.
- It will save me a lot of effort if we have team maintainership and I can
still look like I do something useful.
- I might actually get this enterprise stuff to be 100% Free Software which
would let me use it for SPI + Debian, etc.
I think that it wou
Oh. Uh, apt-get update helps. Never mind.
On Thursday 15 January 2004 18:01, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Why don't you apt-get source kaffe? I did not change a lot of things
> from your package. I did remove the patches and every thing is in the
> changelog i think.
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
Brainfood,
I take that back. ftp.debian.org is still giving me 1.1.1. What am I doing
wrong?
On Thursday 15 January 2004 18:01, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Why don't you apt-get source kaffe? I did not change a lot of things
> from your package. I did remove the patches and every thing is in the
> changelog i t
When I wrote that message apt-get source kaffe was still giving me 1.1.1. I'm
getting the new stuff now.
On Thursday 15 January 2004 18:01, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Why don't you apt-get source kaffe? I did not change a lot of things
> from your package. I did remove the patches and every thing is
I am, but I have never claimed to be organized, detailed, or even particularly
clueful.
I just missed it.
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 23:42, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> You aren't subscribed to debian-devel-announce?
>
> --
> - mdz
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.co
I've been scolded for this same practice in the past. The preference is to
copy in the upstream changelog.
On Thursday 08 January 2004 07:42, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> >> >* New upstream release (Closes: #215095).
> >> > - Closes: #225702
> >> >Already explained in the bug report,
My first problem is that I apparently didn't see an error message from dupload
when I was trying to upload 1.1.2. I just finally read the anonymous-ftp
upload procedure but the NMUs seem quite a bit ahead of me.
The truth is that I should give Debian up for adoption because I don't have
the tim
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that I have been attempting to upload my packages to the regular
> FTP queue. I haven't been uploading them anonymously. I don't know how I
> failed to see that this doesn't work but I thought it was working and assumed
> the delay was rel
I just installed Sun's j2sdk1.4.2_03 using the .bin file from java.sun.com
and Tomcat 5.0.16 using the latest binary dist from jakarta.apache.org. It
comes up and seems to be working ok.
My question is this: the debian-java archives mention the need for a
"backrev of certain .so's" or something
[I posted this on Dec 22nd, but it seems it never got through, so I
repost it.
Since then I found bug #211560, which raises a similar concern with ant.
It was sent in mid September, and did not get any answer. We really need
to address this issue.]
Ben Burton wrote:
Let me preface this by sta
Ben Burton wrote:
I invite you to try apt-cache showpkg. Btw, I maintain two of them
(jython and libreadline-java), both of which can be used as libraries.
$ dpkg -p jython
[...]
Depends: gij | java-virtual-machine, gij | java1-runtime |
java2-runtime, libreadline-java (>= 0.6), python2.
> Non of them even implements the full JDK 1.1 API so they also shouldn't
> provide java1-runtime unless you change the definition of the
> java1-runtime virtual package.
We've already had this argument. The java*-runtime virtual packages
are a loosely defined system for which Jan already has
--
Victor Fuente
Debian GNU/Linux User
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20 matches
Mail list logo
