On 13.04.2010 00:52, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Apr 13 00:46, Matthias Klose wrote:
if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
available, then yes.
Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture
which does not have gcj, possibly faili
On Tue Apr 13 00:50, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 12.04.2010 19:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> p2_java_executables.patch rewords the part about executable jar files
>> under the Java Programs section. It will allow Java Programs to install
>> in accordance with the Debian Policy (and not just in /usr/bi
On Tue Apr 13 00:46, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not
>>> available, then yes.
>>
>> Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture
>> which does not have gcj, possibly failing the dependency is actually
>
On 12.04.2010 19:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
p2_java_executables.patch rewords the part about executable jar files
under the Java Programs section. It will allow Java Programs to install
in accordance with the Debian Policy (and not just in /usr/bin). It also
specifies where private jar files should
On 13.04.2010 00:36, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Apr 12 19:57, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Johnson schrieb:
AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
that we have a m
On Mon Apr 12 19:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> p2_java_executables.patch rewords the part about executable jar files
> under the Java Programs section. It will allow Java Programs to install
> in accordance with the Debian Policy (and not just in /usr/bin). It also
> specifies where private jar files
On Mon Apr 12 19:57, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Matthew Johnson schrieb:
>>> AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
>>> that we have a meta package for jdk and a me
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> If accepted I will officially retire the following virtual packages on
> behalf of the team:
looks good to me.
Cheers,
Torsten
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Johnson schrieb:
AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and
depend on jdk, -gcj; rather t
Hi
p1_remove_compiler_sect.patch will remove the section "Java Compilers"
and all references to the virtual packages java-virtual-machine,
java-compiler and java2-compiler.
If accepted I will officially retire the following virtual packages on
behalf of the team:
* java-virtual-machine
* java
Hi,
Actually Hideki is working on this and there is a progress there.
Hope he will get in touch with you soon.
Thanks,
Yulia
Niels Thykier wrote:
Hi
I stumbled a cross this, which is now 1 and a half month old or so.
Whats the status on this? I do not see netbeans in the a
~Niels
NB: It wa
Actually, I think I probably fixed this bug with:
sun-java6 (6.18-4) unstable; urgency=low
* Package sun-java6-plugin now register plugins for various browser
(Closes: #534174)
-- Sylvestre Ledru Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:50:06
+0100
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-re
Your message dated Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:51:35 +0200
with message-id <4bc33377.2000...@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: [java-common] "update-java-alternatives --plugin -s
java-6-sun", fails to update iceweasel-javaplugin.so alternative
has caused the Debian Bug report #544680,
regarding [java-comm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Johnson schrieb:
> AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting
> that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and
> depend on jdk, -gcj; rather than what we have at the moment which is
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 577482 with 575346
Bug #577482 [src:java-common] java-common: Please add sh4 to openjdk-6 support
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 577482: 575346
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistan
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> #java-common (0.36) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
> #
> # * Added sh4 to the list of architectures that support openjdk-6.
> #(Closes: #577482)
> #
> limit source java-common
Limiting to bugs with field 'source' containing at least one of 'java-com
On Mon Apr 12 13:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> -gcj please, it's not needed just for for JNI, that should be clear. I also
>> agree that there's no need to have a default-jdk+gcj builddep, you can just
>> depend on both if you need both. I don't know whether gcj-jdk is suitable for
>> that, if no
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:08:24PM +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Probably completely dropping this paragraph is the best solution:
>
> "The same technique is for example adopted by the Java maintainers
> without using build-essential but by providing a default-jdk-builddep
> metapackage that
On 12.04.2010 12:42, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Apr 12 10:56, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
(openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
However, some people are not a
On 12.04.2010 13:08, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the
name, but this should be a distinct package.
CC'ing Enrico; please
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the
>> name, but this should be a distinct package.
>>
>> CC'ing Enrico; please change that in [1] for now.
>> [1]
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the
> name, but this should be a distinct package.
>
> CC'ing Enrico; please change that in [1] for now.
> [1]
> http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_ts
On Mon Apr 12 10:56, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
> > (openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
> > However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the nam
On 12.04.2010 11:27, Torsten Werner wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Niels Thykier schrieb:
I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Niels Thykier schrieb:
> I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something
> else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in
> B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers and developers. If you have a
> suggestion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Michael Tautschnig schrieb:
> Would you mind explaining why one should not use default-jdk-builddep?
I don't really know but the name was probably chosen because
default-jdk-builddep is only used as a Build-Depends whereas it makes
sense to insta
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs
> (openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages.
> However, some people are not aware of this and looking at the name of
> the package they assume it is the Ja
27 matches
Mail list logo
