Re: Eclipse, SWT browser and AMD64

2005-10-09 Thread Michael Koch
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 08:24:08AM +0200, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: > > I work to make it possible to be able to backport my Eclipse to Sarge > > too. Thats half done currently. I dont promise any timeframe for this. > A backport to a *stock* Sarge would really be nice (to use an > understatement).

Re: Eclipse, SWT browser and AMD64

2005-10-09 Thread Joost Kraaijeveld
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 07:39 +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > That FAQ is still correct. I use the same trick for my Eclipse packages > which will get uploaded to unstable soon. OK, thanks for the answer. > I work to make it possible to be able to backport my Eclipse to Sarge > too. Thats half done cur

Re: Eclipse, SWT browser and AMD64

2005-10-09 Thread Michael Koch
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:35:03PM +0200, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: > Hi, > > Is there an Eclipse version for Debian Sarge AMD64 that natively > supports the SWT browser widget or does the FAQ entry > (http://www.eclipse.org/swt/faq.php#browserlinux) still applies? That FAQ is still correct. I us

Re: Eclipse packages bug

2005-10-09 Thread Michael Koch
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 07:03:05PM +0400, Ivan S. Dubrov wrote: > Do not know there to post, so I post here. > > Eclipse 3.1 packages (from http://www.backports.org/~mkoch/) contain a bug - > the plugin org.apache.ant is missing libraries (like ant-jai.jar, etc), but > MANIFEST.MF of the org.apa

Re: Current status of your swt-gtk package

2005-10-09 Thread Michael Koch
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 09:41:51PM -0500, Billy Biggs wrote: > Andreas Pakulat ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > On 10.10.05 00:01:02, Michael Koch wrote: > > > We (my sponsor and I) will upload Eclipse to the contrib section for > > > now as it depends on lucene and tomcat5 which are still in contrib. >

Re: Current status of your swt-gtk package

2005-10-09 Thread Billy Biggs
Andreas Pakulat ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On 10.10.05 00:01:02, Michael Koch wrote: > > We (my sponsor and I) will upload Eclipse to the contrib section for > > now as it depends on lucene and tomcat5 which are still in contrib. > > I'm curious: Why does Eclipse depend on tomcat5? At least the binar

Re: Current status of your swt-gtk package

2005-10-09 Thread Barry Hawkins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Pakulat wrote: > On 10.10.05 00:01:02, Michael Koch wrote: > >>We (my sponsor and I) will upload Eclipse to the contrib section for >>now as it depends on lucene and tomcat5 which are still in contrib. > > > I'm curious: Why does Eclipse dep

Re: Current status of your swt-gtk package

2005-10-09 Thread Andreas Pakulat
On 10.10.05 00:01:02, Michael Koch wrote: > We (my sponsor and I) will upload Eclipse to the contrib section for > now as it depends on lucene and tomcat5 which are still in contrib. I'm curious: Why does Eclipse depend on tomcat5? At least the binaries from eclipse.org don't need it. Andreas --

Re: Current status of your swt-gtk package

2005-10-09 Thread Michael Koch
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 01:03:33PM -0500, Billy Biggs wrote: > Shaun Jackman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > as we spoke some time ago you wanted to get your swt-gtk packages to > > > testing and then supersede them by the ones generate from the new > > > Eclispe 3.1 (3.1.1 in the meanwhile). My pack