About Freeplane

Hello, Would it be possible to upgrade the freeplane version in the next stable version ? Actually the bookworm version is the same it was in bullseye, and it seems it would be the same in trixie... cheers,

Bug#141855: O: lib-dom-java

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08 Severity: normal I no longer program in Java and I'm quite dissatisfied by the Java situation in the free software world, anyway. Someone who follows the XML/Java world should check it this package is still sensible. No important bugs filled in. -

Bug#141855: O: lib-dom-java

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08 Severity: normal I no longer program in Java and I'm quite dissatisfied by the Java situation in the free software world, anyway. Someone who follows the XML/Java world should check it this package is still sensible. No important bugs filled in.

Orphaning everything written in Java

[Please Cc: me the replies, I'm no longer on the debian-java list.] As I announced here, I've formally orphaned my Java-related programs, specially java-common. In my new job, I no longer use or teach Java. Besides, I'm quite disappointed with the way free Java works (or does not work) and I'm

Orphaning everything written in Java

[Please Cc: me the replies, I'm no longer on the debian-java list.] As I announced here, I've formally orphaned my Java-related programs, specially java-common. In my new job, I no longer use or teach Java. Besides, I'm quite disappointed with the way free Java works (or does not work) and I'

Re: Quitting debian-java

On Friday 2 March 2001, at 18 h 51, Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully > unaware of reality... I must confess my lack of experience with Java. Certainly you run far more Java programs than me. And I have to ad

Re: Quitting debian-java

On Friday 2 March 2001, at 18 h 51, Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully > unaware of reality... I must confess my lack of experience with Java. Certainly you run far more Java programs than me. And I have to a

Re: Quitting debian-java

On Thursday 1 March 2001, at 16 h 40, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway i hope that after quiting main Java2 blocker I will learn Peter's lesson, I will not write this is absurd. But it is: the fact that Java2 is non-free (and not even redistributable) is not my

Re: Quitting debian-java

On Thursday 1 March 2001, at 16 h 40, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway i hope that after quiting main Java2 blocker I will learn Peter's lesson, I will not write this is absurd. But it is: the fact that Java2 is non-free (and not even redistributable) is not my

Quitting debian-java

[If you want me to read your messages, copy them to me: I've unsubscribed.] I'm changing, I'm leaving for a new employer and, in my new office, I will no longer use Java (which is a good thing for me, see hereunder). Therefore, I stop maintaining java-common (I will send an official ITO unless

Quitting debian-java

[If you want me to read your messages, copy them to me: I've unsubscribed.] I'm changing, I'm leaving for a new employer and, in my new office, I will no longer use Java (which is a good thing for me, see hereunder). Therefore, I stop maintaining java-common (I will send an official ITO unles

Re: building java packages

On Tuesday 26 December 2000, at 20 h 51, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I choose to use jikes, I need some class libraries installed. I'm > thinking of packaging classpath-0.01. jikes works fine with kaffe's classes.

Re: building java packages

On Tuesday 26 December 2000, at 16 h 2, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 4. The current scheme where library .jars go into > /usr/share/java/[repository], doesn't seem to take into account > versioning. There is also no mention of versioning in the Java policy for > /usr/s

Re: building java packages

On Tuesday 26 December 2000, at 20 h 51, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I choose to use jikes, I need some class libraries installed. I'm > thinking of packaging classpath-0.01. jikes works fine with kaffe's classes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: building java packages

On Tuesday 26 December 2000, at 16 h 2, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 4. The current scheme where library .jars go into > /usr/share/java/[repository], doesn't seem to take into account > versioning. There is also no mention of versioning in the Java policy for > /usr/

Re: Is there a FM/HOWTO about setting up java 1.2 on Debian?

On Thursday 9 November 2000, at 8 h 58, the keyboard of Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > not discover in skimming the archives. Incidentally, the FAQ > does not yet cover the information Juergen provided about aptable > repositories. Updated. -- http://people.debian.org/~bortz

Re: Is there a FM/HOWTO about setting up java 1.2 on Debian?

On Thursday 9 November 2000, at 8 h 58, the keyboard of Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > not discover in skimming the archives. Incidentally, the FAQ > does not yet cover the information Juergen provided about aptable > repositories. Updated. -- http://people.debian.org/~bort

Re: packaging jars vs. classes

On Thursday 9 November 2000, at 22 h 37, the keyboard of =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This proposed java-policy is broken... It doesn't allow for diferent > versions of the same classes. Proposals and patches are welcome (bugs against java-common, for insta

Re: packaging jars vs. classes

On Thursday 9 November 2000, at 22 h 37, the keyboard of =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This proposed java-policy is broken... It doesn't allow for diferent > versions of the same classes. Proposals and patches are welcome (bugs against java-common, for inst

Packages building without the proper options (Was: Getting ant and kaffe to play nice

On Wednesday 8 November 2000, at 15 h 29, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a number of features (including even X AWT GUI support) that are > silently disabled during the Kaffe build if you do not have the proper header > files installed. This is a ver

Re: packaging jars vs. classes

On Wednesday 8 November 2000, at 12 h 3, the keyboard of Aaron Brashears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Emenaker sent a nice idea to me which the list didn't get to > see. He suggested making a script which does autodetection of jar > files in your /usr/share/java and sets the classpath > appro

Re: Is there a FM/HOWTO about setting up java 1.2 on Debian?

On Wednesday 8 November 2000, at 14 h 2, the keyboard of Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need some advice on setting up a working java 1.2 > environment on Debian: is there such a beast? The FAQ gives some ideas: http://people.debian.org/~bortz/Java/debian-java-faq.html/c

Packages building without the proper options (Was: Getting ant and kaffe to play nice

On Wednesday 8 November 2000, at 15 h 29, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a number of features (including even X AWT GUI support) that are > silently disabled during the Kaffe build if you do not have the proper header > files installed. This is a ve

Re: packaging jars vs. classes

On Wednesday 8 November 2000, at 12 h 3, the keyboard of Aaron Brashears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Emenaker sent a nice idea to me which the list didn't get to > see. He suggested making a script which does autodetection of jar > files in your /usr/share/java and sets the classpath > appr

Re: Is there a FM/HOWTO about setting up java 1.2 on Debian?

On Wednesday 8 November 2000, at 14 h 2, the keyboard of Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need some advice on setting up a working java 1.2 > environment on Debian: is there such a beast? The FAQ gives some ideas: http://people.debian.org/~bortz/Java/debian-java-faq.html/

Re: packaging jars vs. classes

On Tuesday 7 November 2000, at 21 h 55, the keyboard of Aaron Brashears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After some reflection it seems that it would make more sense to just > copy the class files in /usr/share/java so setting the classpath for > standard packages would be handled once by setting > C

Re: packaging jars vs. classes

On Tuesday 7 November 2000, at 21 h 55, the keyboard of Aaron Brashears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After some reflection it seems that it would make more sense to just > copy the class files in /usr/share/java so setting the classpath for > standard packages would be handled once by setting >

Re: Getting ant and kaffe to play nice

On Wednesday 1 November 2000, at 23 h 54, the keyboard of Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Try rebuilding Kaffe after installing GNU gmp. GMP detection was broken in Kaffe (it is needed in Freenet, for instance). It works in the CVS version of Kaffe but I'm not sure about the Kaffe we

Re: Getting ant and kaffe to play nice

On Wednesday 1 November 2000, at 23 h 54, the keyboard of Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Try rebuilding Kaffe after installing GNU gmp. GMP detection was broken in Kaffe (it is needed in Freenet, for instance). It works in the CVS version of Kaffe but I'm not sure about the Kaffe we

Re: guidelines for making Java software easy to package for debian?

On Thursday 5 October 2000, at 8 h 38, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If I had a document that said exactly how it should work, I could set up > Kawa and BRL s.t. a change in the Java policy only means a change in the > configure directives; ... > maintainers, while letting the rest

Re: guidelines for making Java software easy to package for debian?

On Thursday 5 October 2000, at 8 h 38, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If I had a document that said exactly how it should work, I could set up > Kawa and BRL s.t. a change in the Java policy only means a change in the > configure directives; ... > maintainers, while letting the rest

Re: guidelines for making Java software easy to package for debian?

On Tuesday 3 October 2000, at 14 h 10, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Packaging Debian software for Java is still somewhat confusing for me, Yes. > and policy seems to be in flux. It is, by lack of sufficient consensus or by lack of brute strenght from the editor. > Some standar

Re: guidelines for making Java software easy to package for debian?

On Tuesday 3 October 2000, at 14 h 10, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Packaging Debian software for Java is still somewhat confusing for me, Yes. > and policy seems to be in flux. It is, by lack of sufficient consensus or by lack of brute strenght from the editor. > Some standa

Re: Java policy document is unretrievable

On Saturday 30 September 2000, at 19 h 51, the keyboard of Peter M Kahle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is due to a hard drive crash on the machine that hosts the > www.debian.org/~* addresses. I don't know what the repair time on > that is. Fixed.

Re: Java policy document is unretrievable

On Saturday 30 September 2000, at 19 h 51, the keyboard of Peter M Kahle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is due to a hard drive crash on the machine that hosts the > www.debian.org/~* addresses. I don't know what the repair time on > that is. Fixed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR

Re: link for BlueJ in Debian Java FAQ is outdated

On Thursday 21 September 2000, at 18 h 3, the keyboard of Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it seems that the main page of BlueJ is now > http://www.pscit.monash.edu.au/~mik/bluej/ Fixed. next time, I suggest a formal bug report against java-common.

Re: link for BlueJ in Debian Java FAQ is outdated

On Thursday 21 September 2000, at 18 h 3, the keyboard of Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it seems that the main page of BlueJ is now > http://www.pscit.monash.edu.au/~mik/bluej/ Fixed. next time, I suggest a formal bug report against java-common. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: advantage of /usr/share/java/repository over /usr/share/java?

On Thursday 14 September 2000, at 11 h 52, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Consensus among whom? Do Debian developers who don't care about Java > have to be involved, or can it just be those on the debian-java list. There is no clear policy on Debian about how subpolicies (Emacs, Apa

Re: advantage of /usr/share/java/repository over /usr/share/java?

On Thursday 14 September 2000, at 11 h 52, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Consensus among whom? Do Debian developers who don't care about Java > have to be involved, or can it just be those on the debian-java list. There is no clear policy on Debian about how subpolicies (Emacs, Ap

Re: advantage of /usr/share/java/repository over /usr/share/java?

On Thursday 14 September 2000, at 8 h 27, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is this a conflict? Foo.jar will never be a top-level directory of the > Java classes. Right but I find it inelegant. > The reason I'm pressing this issue is that I'd like to see Kawa and BRL > packaged for De

Re: advantage of /usr/share/java/repository over /usr/share/java?

On Thursday 14 September 2000, at 8 h 27, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is this a conflict? Foo.jar will never be a top-level directory of the > Java classes. Right but I find it inelegant. > The reason I'm pressing this issue is that I'd like to see Kawa and BRL > packaged for D

Re: advantage of /usr/share/java/repository over /usr/share/java?

On Wednesday 13 September 2000, at 16 h 38, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why would anyone have a problem with /usr/share/java being the > repository. Because you need a place to put the jars, too (for people who prefer them). If we choose your proposal, jars will be directly in t

Re: advantage of /usr/share/java/repository over /usr/share/java?

On Wednesday 13 September 2000, at 16 h 38, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why would anyone have a problem with /usr/share/java being the > repository. Because you need a place to put the jars, too (for people who prefer them). If we choose your proposal, jars will be directly in

Re: ITP enhydra

On Monday 4 September 2000, at 21 h 25, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's interesting that you if can run a Java "binary" you'll also be able > to build the sources very easily. This is because Java is always linked at > run time, so the build-time and run-time depend

Re: ITP enhydra

On Monday 4 September 2000, at 21 h 25, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's interesting that you if can run a Java "binary" you'll also be able > to build the sources very easily. This is because Java is always linked at > run time, so the build-time and run-time depen

Re: ITP enhydra

On Monday 4 September 2000, at 2 h 22, the keyboard of Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian > source package, as it is architecture-independent? Or must it compile from > the > Java source? If the package is in '

Re: ITP enhydra

On Monday 4 September 2000, at 2 h 22, the keyboard of Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it acceptable to use the upstream binary tarball as the .orig for a Debian > source package, as it is architecture-independent? Or must it compile from the > Java source? If the package is in 'no

Re: Java 2

On Tuesday 29 August 2000, at 10 h 59, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why jdk1.1 is in distribution and 1.2 can`t be put in it ? They don't have the same licence.

Re: Java 2

On Friday 18 August 2000, at 9 h 31, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are ther any plans to include latest java VM (1.2 or 1.3) in Debian? See the Debian/Java FAQ . > All major distributions (excluding RedHat an

A suggestion to list core classes

>From Edouard G. Parmelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, one of the Kaffe upstream >developers, a proposal to the Java policy: Each java-virtual-machine comes with a /etc/java-core-classes (using alternatives to manage it). This file contains the list of jars and directories with core classes. For Kaf

Re: Other Kaffe packages...

On Saturday 12 August 2000, at 14 h 45, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is whether we want to have 5 or 6 Kaffe packages around, ie. kaffe, > kaffe-cvs, kaffe-prof-dbg, kaffe-cvs-prof-dbg, kaffe-pthreads, > kaffe-cvs-pthreads, etc. I would say to do the same a

Re: Java 2

On Tuesday 29 August 2000, at 10 h 59, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why jdk1.1 is in distribution and 1.2 can`t be put in it ? They don't have the same licence. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM

Re: Java 2

On Friday 18 August 2000, at 9 h 31, the keyboard of Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are ther any plans to include latest java VM (1.2 or 1.3) in Debian? See the Debian/Java FAQ . > All major distributions (excluding RedHat an

A suggestion to list core classes

>From Edouard G. Parmelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, one of the Kaffe upstream developers, a proposal to the Java policy: Each java-virtual-machine comes with a /etc/java-core-classes (using alternatives to manage it). This file contains the list of jars and directories with core classes. For Kaff

Re: Other Kaffe packages...

On Saturday 12 August 2000, at 14 h 45, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is whether we want to have 5 or 6 Kaffe packages around, ie. kaffe, > kaffe-cvs, kaffe-prof-dbg, kaffe-cvs-prof-dbg, kaffe-pthreads, > kaffe-cvs-pthreads, etc. I would say to do the same

Re: kaffe on PowerPC: success

On Friday 21 July 2000, at 13 h 29, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ultra-Short-HOWTO: ... > There are still bugs, of course, we'll see later. (Freenet crashes, for > instance, because of a problem with BigInteger). I had to install lib

Re: versioning?

On Saturday 22 July 2000, at 9 h 58, the keyboard of "E.L. Willighagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All jars files in /usr/share/java have no versioning. Is that policy? The policy leaves this issue more or less blank :-) > In Java versioning is also important... But troublesome. IMHO, the b

Re: kaffe on PowerPC: success

On Friday 21 July 2000, at 13 h 29, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ultra-Short-HOWTO: ... > There are still bugs, of course, we'll see later. (Freenet crashes, for > instance, because of a problem with BigInteger). I had to install lib

Re: versioning?

On Saturday 22 July 2000, at 9 h 58, the keyboard of "E.L. Willighagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All jars files in /usr/share/java have no versioning. Is that policy? The policy leaves this issue more or less blank :-) > In Java versioning is also important... But troublesome. IMHO, the

Re: Bug#66540: kaffe on PowerPC: success

On Friday 21 July 2000, at 12 h 6, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On this note I guess that the most sensible thing to do is go ahead and > put the CVS .debs I have in incoming. Do you plan to compile them with --with-libffi? At least on PowerPC, this is mand

Re: Bug#66540: kaffe on PowerPC: success

On Friday 21 July 2000, at 12 h 6, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On this note I guess that the most sensible thing to do is go ahead and > put the CVS .debs I have in incoming. Do you plan to compile them with --with-libffi? At least on PowerPC, this is mand

kaffe on PowerPC: success

With the last CVS tree of kaffe and the help of Edouard Parmelan, fearless kaffe developer, everything works. Ultra-Short-HOWTO: 1) Get FFI from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/libffi/ (it does not seem to be in any Debian package) and install it (./configure; make

kaffe on PowerPC: success

With the last CVS tree of kaffe and the help of Edouard Parmelan, fearless kaffe developer, everything works. Ultra-Short-HOWTO: 1) Get FFI from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/libffi/ (it does not seem to be in any Debian package) and install it (./configure; mak

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 8 h 34, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > kaffe's debian/control file says: > > Architecture: i386 m68k powerpc sparc arm hurd-i386 > > so it should build out-of-the-box on a PowerPC ('apt-get --compile

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 8 h 34, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > kaffe's debian/control file says: > > Architecture: i386 m68k powerpc sparc arm hurd-i386 > > so it should build out-of-the-box on a PowerPC ('apt-get --compile

Debian Java FAQ on line

With the agreement of Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, author and maintainer of the Debian Java FAQ (an huge work, Javier succeeded in making clear the awful mess of Java on Debian) I've uploaded a new version of java-common, which includes the FAQ. And I have put the FAQ o

Debian Java FAQ on line

With the agreement of Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, author and maintainer of the Debian Java FAQ (an huge work, Javier succeeded in making clear the awful mess of Java on Debian) I've uploaded a new version of java-common, which includes the FAQ. And I have put the FAQ

Re: two LGPL java packages that I want to distribute

On Monday 10 July 2000, at 9 h 9, the keyboard of david sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, they both require non-free JVMs and JDKs. As was said here, 'of course' is not obvious. You may want to check. > So, is this an acceptable practice for Debian? Basically, if a free package dep

Re: two LGPL java packages that I want to distribute

On Monday 10 July 2000, at 9 h 9, the keyboard of david sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, they both require non-free JVMs and JDKs. As was said here, 'of course' is not obvious. You may want to check. > So, is this an acceptable practice for Debian? Basically, if a free package de

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Saturday 8 July 2000, at 21 h 26, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a systems software > writer you can't choose what to provide, you have to provide what people > are using and want. I am sorry but this is plainly wrong. Debian is running on volunteer time and, yes

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Saturday 8 July 2000, at 21 h 26, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a systems software > writer you can't choose what to provide, you have to provide what people > are using and want. I am sorry but this is plainly wrong. Debian is running on volunteer time and, ye

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Tuesday 4 July 2000, at 23 h 0, the keyboard of Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems like it will take a while to stamp out this misunderstanding ... ... > However, the *documentation* of JDK 1.3 (including Swing) is *not* > under the SCSL and it specifically *does* permit indepen

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Tuesday 4 July 2000, at 23 h 0, the keyboard of Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems like it will take a while to stamp out this misunderstanding ... ... > However, the *documentation* of JDK 1.3 (including Swing) is *not* > under the SCSL and it specifically *does* permit indepe

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 15 h 13, the keyboard of "C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good for you. But some people need or *want* to use software that > isn't ``free'' (as in speech). I don't pretend I will force them to be free. I'm not trying to stop them (I cannot). I just say

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Saturday 1 July 2000, at 1 h 18, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would rephrase it: if there is no Free Java solution ... > > then we should stop working with Java and start encouraging > > people to switch to another language. > > Java has such massive support,

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 15 h 13, the keyboard of "C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good for you. But some people need or *want* to use software that > isn't ``free'' (as in speech). I don't pretend I will force them to be free. I'm not trying to stop them (I cannot). I just sa

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Saturday 1 July 2000, at 1 h 18, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would rephrase it: if there is no Free Java solution ... > > then we should stop working with Java and start encouraging > > people to switch to another language. > > Java has such massive support

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 8 h 29, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. Compilability. Kaffe simply doesn't build on PowerPC Linux > >systems > > I wasn't aware of this problem (I didn't try kaffe on PowerPC). You should >

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Thursday 29 June 2000, at 14 h 11, "C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Following your suggestion, I took a look at Kaffe's Web site and > downloaded the source tar file. There is no need to do so. Since there is a Debian package, 'apt-get install kaffe' should suffice. But: > 1. C

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 8 h 29, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. Compilability. Kaffe simply doesn't build on PowerPC Linux > >systems > > I wasn't aware of this problem (I didn't try kaffe on PowerPC). You should >

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Thursday 29 June 2000, at 14 h 11, "C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Following your suggestion, I took a look at Kaffe's Web site and > downloaded the source tar file. There is no need to do so. Since there is a Debian package, 'apt-get install kaffe' should suffice. But: > 1.

Re: Severe problems with JDK 1.2.2 and potato

On Saturday 3 June 2000, at 0 h 26, the keyboard of "Dr. Simon Read" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the Java package maintainers should give serious thought to > their policy, especially with respect to Java 2. The fact that Java 2 is not publicly redistributable is beyond Debian's c

Re: A plea for a distribution of the XML/Java Apache tools

On Tuesday 23 May 2000, at 14 h 21, the keyboard of Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your real problem here is Sun, not the Linux distributors, because > the Sun licenses pretty much prevent redistribution of their tools. Thanks for the good explanation and proper pointing of responsabil

Re: java installation...

On Tuesday 23 May 2000, at 12 h 40, the keyboard of Bath Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have installed jdk1.2.2 under /usr dircetory on my debian > box(2.2.14).. Never do that. Under /usr, only packages are allowed. Other stuff should go under /usr/local.

Re: Latest Revision of the Debian/JAVA FAQ

On Monday 3 April 2000, at 18 h 24, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 4.3. Are there known problems? > -- > > * Kaffe loops endlessly on the XML parsing. This *was* bug 51263 but the version currently in potato/frozen (bu

Re: byteorder of java objects

On Monday 3 April 2000, at 12 h 27, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Or, should I perhaps be more interested in coming up with a stream > > cipher that I could use in conjunction with the java streams? Good idea. BlowfishDataOutputStream :-) > Sounds like you don't have much experien

Re: Latest version of the Debian/JAVA FAQ

On Monday 20 March 2000, at 10 h 16, the keyboard of Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The current cvs version of gcj handles all JDK 1.1 constructs, > including inner classes. Did you try it on a complicated and real program like the XSL processor xt ? We will have no free XSL processor

Fwd: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation

I think it is an important announce for Free Java. No date given for release, unfortunately: --- Forwarded Message To: Java Announcements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 06 Ma

Cannot open /proc/xxx?

I'm sure I've already seen this bug, and it was JDK-related, but I cannot find it in the BTS. Any memory, someone? --- Forwarded Message X-Debian-PR-Message: report 59781 X-Debian-PR-Package: lib-xt-java X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 01:15:48 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Dietel

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Tuesday 22 February 2000, at 22 h 1, the keyboard of Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that "free software" is to be preferred, but your argument > is strange. "Open source" is a precisely defined concept (and thus > "means nothing" is untrue), In theory, yes. It is

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Monday 21 February 2000, at 18 h 40, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many of these components have been cloned under an Open Source > license. Use "free", not "open source" which means nothing and is only for the suits.

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Tuesday 22 February 2000, at 13 h 21, the keyboard of "Remco van 't Veer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 6.1. How can I make Java servlets work? > > --- > > You can use: > > > > * GNUJSP > > > > * Apache Jserv > > Not yet packaged fo

Re: FAQ-java draft

On Thursday 17 February 2000, at 21 h 4, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I accept all kinds of suggestions and text written or new questions. I will not repeat what has already been said (gcj and jikes missing, no list for potato). I suggest to add

Re: How about a Debian-Java-FAQ?

On Tuesday 1 February 2000, at 21 h 18, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could we please make a Debian-Java-FAQ if there is no one available? Good idea. Just do it > If no one volunteers I can make a draft and include it in > www.debian.org/deve

Re: Jserv for Sparc

On Tuesday 25 January 2000, at 9 h 25, the keyboard of Emmanuel Bruno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am trying to install Cocoon on a ultrasparc(running potato and the > blackdown port of the JDK), but it requires Jserv and I can't find it > (even in Incoming). Does someone know where I can f

Re: Version

On Sunday 23 January 2000, at 13 h 20, the keyboard of Vincent Gaines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the most up to date version of debian java? There is nothing named Debian Java. We have many packages implementing such or such side of the Java language. > Is this compatible with Sun Ja

Re: Java policy (was Re: tasks)

On Thursday 20 January 2000, at 19 h 25, the keyboard of Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is covered in the Java policy. According to the Java policy, many > > packages can't run with Kaffe. > > Well, this policy is a little bit outdated (from Juli 1999 IIRC) There is no expirat

Re: Package NetRexx?

On Wednesday 12 January 2000, at 23 h 32, the keyboard of Rick Younie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I see most of the talk on the list concerns > licensing. Yes, this is an unfortunate Java-specific problem. Perl or Python lists are immune from it. Can I get an opinion on the freeness of

Re: ibm jdk licence

On Tuesday 11 January 2000, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Robert Varga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My interest is not in what distribution (main or contrib) the ibm-jdk can > be put in, but whether I can use IBM jdk on a debian machine at all. The installer is in Debian, which I take as a suffic

Re: ibm jdk licence

On Monday 10 January 2000, at 18 h 19, the keyboard of Robert Varga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the current state of licensing the IBM jdk? I don't know, the installer is still in "contrib", but contains very few info about the licencing issues. You could file a bug/wishlist against it

  1   2   >