Your message dated Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:26:37 +0200
with message-id <4abc629d.2050...@zorglub.s.bawue.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#548177: java-common: policy not clear for third party
libraries
has caused the Debian Bug report #548177,
regarding java-common: policy not clear for third party librar
Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some time ago it was decided that the sun java 5 packages should be removed
> from the archives (EOL)
> and now they have.
> But I have a requirement (work) for the various sun-java5-* packages and I
> know that 1.5.0_20 was
> uploaded to the archives some
On 2009-09-23, Christopher Bertels wrote:
> A little update: I've udpated libaduna-appbase to not depend on logback=20
> v0.9.9. It now builds fine with the latest liblogback-java, meaning that al=
> l=20
> packages at http://files.kolab.org/apt/sesame2/ build now fully without=20
> dependnig on b
Package: java-common
Version: 0.33
Severity: normal
Hi, I have some third party jar files to install, which don't seem to
fit in with the instructions in the Debian java policy. Policy says
place all libraries in /usr/share/java, but that doesn't appear to work.
The libraries in question are the
Hello,
What's the current status of lucene2?
In SVN is commited version 2.9.0~rc0+ds1-1. Why was this never uploaded
to the archive? In the archive is 2.4.1+ds1-1.
The reason I ask is that I want to update JavaCC to 5.0. The problem is
that the generated Java-code uses annotations and lucene2 2
Your message dated Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:41:38 +0200
with message-id <4abb3ed2.7010...@thykier.net>
and subject line We have the "java" section now.
has caused the Debian Bug report #448286,
regarding java-common: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Almost all Java libraries should be in
section libs.
to be marked as
6 matches
Mail list logo
