On Jan 29, 2008 5:18 PM, Eric Lavarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can log a bug along these lines if you want but someone will have to
> dig into it, because, without error message, I don't know where to start.
You could start by updating this page:
http://developer.classpath.org/mediation/Fre
Andrew Vaughan writes:
> If you are going to rework the virtual packages, please consider adding
> -nox packages so that java{,5}-runtime can depend the appropriate X windows
> packages, and server apps that don't need X windows can depend on
> java{,5}-runtime-nox.
see java-gcj-compat-headless
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:08:45AM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 04:11, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> [snip a lot of good stuff I agree with]
> > A much better solution would be to define a better set of virtual
> > packages. I would go with:
> >
> >- lowest com
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 09:47:53PM +0100, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>> no.
> OK, Why no and why is "Recommends" sufficient? If I may interpret your
> answer, it's because you don't want to pull X-stuff when you only want
> to have a Java runtime for your server.
> In this case, the proposal from Andr
Hi,
Matthias Klose wrote:
Eric Lavarde writes:
Hi everybody,
thanks for your answers, it looks like we don't have yet a consensus.
Let me try to suggest one.
POINT 1:
I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
- the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are
Hi
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 04:11, Matthew Johnson wrote:
[snip a lot of good stuff I agree with]
> A much better solution would be to define a better set of virtual
> packages. I would go with:
>
>- lowest common denominator (essentially the _intersection_ of Java
> 1.4 and whatever
I've been lurking on this thread up until now, but wanted to chime in to say
that I agree with Matthew's point:
> If something _does not work at all_ with the free VMs I don't think it
> should depend on java2-runtime.
Whether or not a package works with a free VM is an issue for the maintainer
Eric Lavarde writes:
> Hi everybody,
>
> thanks for your answers, it looks like we don't have yet a consensus.
> Let me try to suggest one.
>
> POINT 1:
>
> I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
> - the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are the ones
>
On Tue Jan 29 17:45, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> POINT 1:
>
> I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
> - the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are the ones
> tested by the packager, and for which he's ready to stand up and make it
> work (the supported runtimes)
Hi everybody,
thanks for your answers, it looks like we don't have yet a consensus.
Let me try to suggest one.
POINT 1:
I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
- the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are the ones
tested by the packager, and for which h
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Haley wrote:
I guess it depends on whether the program fails because a particular
runtime has bugs or because the program depends on something it shouldn't
use, such as com.sun.* classes. We're pretty complete with respect to 1.4,
so I'd like to know what this problem actually
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 09:47:41AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I have a package which compiles in the sid java-gcj-compat-dev, but only
>> runs with sun java (or, I assume, IBM, but since IBM isn't in the
>> archive, I don't think it's all that important to cater for).
Matthew Johnson wrote:
I have a package which compiles in the sid java-gcj-compat-dev, but only
runs with sun java (or, I assume, IBM, but since IBM isn't in the
archive, I don't think it's all that important to cater for). I've filed
bugs against gcj, which have been fixed upstream, and it will
13 matches
Mail list logo
