Joe Smith hotmail.com> writes:
> I'm not so certain about bycode-compiling
eclipse with gcj.
>From
http://www.backports.org/~mkoch/unstable/
eclipse_3.1-10.diff.gz
it
appears that first the (bootstrap) ecj
compiler is built using gcj, then
the rest of eclipse is compiled with the
nativel
The new packages run on kaffe? (it sounds that way, If you used a
different
free jvm them just 's/kaffe/[name of other JVM]/' for the following
questions.)
Afaik, yes. And on gcj/gij. And surely on the various other up-to-date
free
runtimes in Debian, since they all use pretty much the same
Joe Smith hotmail.com> writes:
> I understand that. What I was saying is that it seemed odd that upstream had
> not done this. It may be a wise dea to prod upstream and see if they will
> update for 3.2. I doubt the breakage is too severe.
They may, but not this early in the release cycle. See
Joe Smith hotmail.com> writes:
> Off topic but just to throw this out, this would seem to be the best (in
> terms of speed) theoretetical JVM:
>
> This a a merged static and dynamic compilation system that gains speed in
> echange for a (slight?) increase in processor usage, resource usage, and
Your message dated Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:47:06 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#326749: fixed in java-snmp 1.4-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:47:06 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#334628: fixed in java-snmp 1.4-3
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
6 matches
Mail list logo
