Hi,
Here's a little project for somebody.
The Debian people want to put OpenOffice in their distribution, but in
order to build it, they need to use Java. But their free software
guidelines prevent them from using Sun's version in the building of the
software because it's non-free (so OpenOffice
Hi,
Here's a little project for somebody.
The Debian people want to put OpenOffice in their distribution, but in
order to build it, they need to use Java. But their free software
guidelines prevent them from using Sun's version in the building of the
software because it's non-free (so OpenOffic
Cool. Looks like a lot of work. :-)
I'll have to give 'em a try (and eventually, with Kaffe).
Cheers,
- Jim
On Fri, 2002-06-28 at 18:33, Adam Heath wrote:
> I am proud to announce that I have finally finished(well, close enough,
> anyways) the debs of JBoss(www.jboss.org). You can fetch the
I think the Debian Java policy, as currently stated, is slightly flawed,
as it tries to satisfy two goals that aren't completely orthogonal:
1) To get as much free Java software into Debian as possible, that runs
without non-free software (eg. without Sun's JDK)
2) To put together a distrib
I think the Debian Java policy, as currently stated, is slightly flawed,
as it tries to satisfy two goals that aren't completely orthogonal:
1) To get as much free Java software into Debian as possible, that runs
without non-free software (eg. without Sun's JDK)
2) To put together a distri
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 17:16, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> > package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> > unimplemented APIs, etc)
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 18:29, Per Bothner wrote:
> Jim Pick wrote:
> > Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> > for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> > compilation (.java to .so) at install time.
> > There are many other free JVMs now: ORP, KissMe, etc...
>
> I am not very happy with trying to compile some Java code (e.g. Jmol
> jmol.sf.net) with every free JVM to see wether it can be done with that...
You should only have to compile the class files once (the classes should
still work,
Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
under gcj so that this could that work?
Granted, the emacs solution is currently a bit
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 17:16, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 12 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > Also, as the upstream kaffe maintainer, I'd really like it if for each
> > package that was stuck in contrib because kaffe can't run it (eg.
> > unimplemented APIs, etc)
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 18:29, Per Bothner wrote:
> Jim Pick wrote:
> > Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
> > for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
> > compilation (.java to .so) at install time.
> > There are many other free JVMs now: ORP, KissMe, etc...
>
> I am not very happy with trying to compile some Java code (e.g. Jmol
> jmol.sf.net) with every free JVM to see wether it can be done with that...
You should only have to compile the class files once (the classes should
still work
Sounds like Debian could use the same solution for gcj that Debian uses
for emacs -> just distribute the .java files and do the ahead-of-time
compilation (.java to .so) at install time. Is this automatic enough
under gcj so that this could that work?
Granted, the emacs solution is currently a bi
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 08:11, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > When we now have (almost) got woody out of the door I think it
> > is time to give the Proposed Java Policy a more official state
> > (i.e. not proposed anymore).
> >
> > It is avai
On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 08:11, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > When we now have (almost) got woody out of the door I think it
> > is time to give the Proposed Java Policy a more official state
> > (i.e. not proposed anymore).
> >
> > It is ava
Hi,
I just noticed in the Debian Java FAQ that it says that Kaffe is not
going to be implementing Java2 (for legal reasons).
I don't think that's correct. I want to see as much of the Java2 APIs
implemented as possible in Kaffe. It will probably be a long time
before we have all of Java2 implem
> I thought that the build process of OpenOffice depended on [I'm being
> vague here :-(] "some bundle of Java2 stuff," which would have the
> result that despite OpenOffice itself being "free software," since a
> build requires distinctly nonfree stuff, it can't go in "free."
>
> It's almost enou
Hi,
I just noticed in the Debian Java FAQ that it says that Kaffe is not
going to be implementing Java2 (for legal reasons).
I don't think that's correct. I want to see as much of the Java2 APIs
implemented as possible in Kaffe. It will probably be a long time
before we have all of Java2 imple
> I thought that the build process of OpenOffice depended on [I'm being
> vague here :-(] "some bundle of Java2 stuff," which would have the
> result that despite OpenOffice itself being "free software," since a
> build requires distinctly nonfree stuff, it can't go in "free."
>
> It's almost eno
Hi,
I remember playing with Pad++ back in the early days of Gnome - it was
really cool (but proprietary).
Somebody should check this out - it's been rewritten in Java and it's
now under the MPL.
Cheers,
- Jim
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Pad++ friends,
It has been a long time since we have se
20 matches
Mail list logo
