On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 00:04 -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> The sources for these packages is located at:
>
> http://kyoto.larvalstage.net/ubuntu/warty
>
> These are compiled for my desktop installation of Ubuntu warty/hoary.
> The source packages should be re-compilable on unstable. PLEASE
> RECOMP
[Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under other
licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal]
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> However if nobody stands up and say clearly, that there IS a problem,
> that GPL and CPL/APL are NOT compatible, and cannot be linked togethe
Please be aware of a new bugfix in eclipse, which checks for the jvm
version to avoid a crash without a proper message :
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=82068
this may (or may not) interfer with what you are doing (depending on the
version reported by Kaffe)
Jerry Haltom wrote:
F
On Wed, 2005-12-01 at 02:49 +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski debian.org> writes:
>
> > See http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ for details.
>
> Gadek, last time you've taken your claims to debian-legal, noone on
> debian-legal
> agreed with your interpretation of the GPL. Sor
Grzegorz B. Prokopski debian.org> writes:
> See http://sablevm.org/wiki/License_FAQ for details.
Gadek, last time you've taken your claims to debian-legal, noone on debian-legal
agreed with your interpretation of the GPL. Sorry. Maybe your interpretation is
not all you make it up to be. ;)
I fi
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:22:18 -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> Which Jars were these that were not built?
As David Walluck mentions in this mail:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.jpackage.general/6215
The 12 jars that are not built in the jpackage version are:
"1.) plugins/org.eclipse.core.boo
Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:04:09 -0600
Sir:
We have had trouble getting a hold of you by phone. As we promised, your
morttgage app was apprroved with 3.9 %
Please correct your info here, so we can start
http://www.wtljnb.com/
Thank you
Antone Goode
PZHKK
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Mon, 2005-10-01 at 00:07 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Prompted by #289245, I think it might be a good idea to just remove all
> those sun-j2sdk1.4debian packages etc. I can't really see any good
> reason to have them, they have a circular depends with their generated
> counterp
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 00:04 -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> Following up on my earlier notification of Eclipse 3.0 packages.
>
> They now successfully compile Eclipse and **RUN** Eclipse using a Free
> JVM (Kaffe). This means, excluding a few packages, Eclipse 3.0 is ALMOST
> clear to go into main.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jerry Haltom wrote:
[...]
| One of the things I'm most unhappy with is that I have to hunt around for
| native libraries, compile them manually, and then move them to
| /usr/lib/eclipse. It would be nicer if the build process were to get them,
| and upd
Which Jars were these that were not built? I have found two for lucene, a
dozen for Ant and jsch. What I am doing for these is simply linking the
Debian versions into place before install. It results in a plugin laid
out as upstream intended, but using local copies.
Seems to work pretty well.
One
Hi Jerry,
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:04:27 -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote:
> Following up on my earlier notification of Eclipse 3.0 packages.
>
> They now successfully compile Eclipse and **RUN** Eclipse using a Free
> JVM (Kaffe). This means, excluding a few packages, Eclipse 3.0 is ALMOST
> clear to go
12 matches
Mail list logo
