On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Ludovic Claude
wrote:
> I can see some problem here: Jackrabbit 1.x uses JSR 170, with is under
> a non-free license (Day software grants you a fee-free use of the
> sotfware - something like that but you need to check).
Ugly, a JSR with no free implementation avai
Michael Koch wrote:
>> --
>>* ["JVM"], ["JRE"] and ["SDK"] (TODO: these might all be removed, or
>> redirected to this page here?!)
>>
>> == Java from Sun ==
>> + * ["Java/Sun"] - some info about the openjdk in d
Michael Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 12:28:09PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> Am I missing something? Isn't Sun's Java 6 in Debian still in non-free?!
> It is. And it will never move to main. Someone should revert this change
> to old text which is more clear, IMO.
Please look at the Wi
Hey guys,
I did not understand these whole low-level technical details(when
reading the original thread in the archives I just don't get it, sorry),
but when I hear "Java on ARM" it might be interesting that the people
from the jalimo project build packages of different JVM's for the maemo
platfor
Graham Evans wrote:
> [...]
> I have tried Bluefish not so long ago - I didn't mind it. One thing
> that draws me to Arachnophilia is its simplicity for html, css and
> javascript work. Now I am actually finding my fallback - the latest
> version of gedit - is getting me almost as productive as I
Graham Evans wrote:
> Calling for:
> hints on what to do/ possible causes/fixes...
- make sure you are not using a free non-sun java implementation
accidentally that might behave not 100% exactly as the sun
implementation the program seems to be tested against. Check to ouput of
java -version to s
Marcus Better wrote:
>> And please... if you have ideas for interesting libraries and/or
>> applications to package please add them to the wiki.
>
> Please, that's the umpteenth wiki page with requested packages. For instance
> there is
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/Java/RequestedPackages
O.K. Th
7 matches
Mail list logo
