> This is where I stand right now with at least one package: I cannot
> depend on java1-runtime because two of the three packages that provide
> it *don't work*. By leaving the java1-runtime tag on the incomplete
> VM packages, I'm required to maunally validate these packages
> continuously or si
> This is where I stand right now with at least one package: I cannot
> depend on java1-runtime because two of the three packages that provide
> it *don't work*. By leaving the java1-runtime tag on the incomplete
> VM packages, I'm required to maunally validate these packages
> continuously or si
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:30:07AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Ola> I think that major new things (i.e. swing and awt) from java1
Ola> (from 1.0, or maybe only from 1.1 and above) should be broken
Ola> down.
What doe you
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:20:54AM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
*SNIP*
>
> As an aside, it's also worth noting that even if package dependencies
> become so restricted that they end up depending on a single JVM, having a
> package depend on a specific JVM doesn't at all imply that that specific
> JVM
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:41:50AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Hi Ben,
*SNIP*
> >
> > Perhaps Depends: kaffe | java1-runtime to show the
> > user that I know it
> > works on kaffe but to allow a user to install some
> > other JVM instead?
This is preferred anyway. Actually you will get a linti
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:20:54AM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
*SNIP*
>
> As an aside, it's also worth noting that even if package dependencies
> become so restricted that they end up depending on a single JVM, having a
> package depend on a specific JVM doesn't at all imply that that specific
> JVM
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:41:50AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Hi Ben,
*SNIP*
> >
> > Perhaps Depends: kaffe | java1-runtime to show the
> > user that I know it
> > works on kaffe but to allow a user to install some
> > other JVM instead?
This is preferred anyway. Actually you will get a linti
Hi Ben,
--- Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to point out that I wasn't advocating
> that
> > the debian maintainer tracks all VMs available
> for
> > debian all the time. Just that she specifies a
> (i.e.
> > at least one ;) free VM that the application works
> > with in ord
> I'd like to point out that I wasn't advocating that
> the debian maintainer tracks all VMs available for
> debian all the time. Just that she specifies a (i.e.
> at least one ;) free VM that the application works
> with in order to be in 'debian-free'.
Mm.. what worries me about this is that i
Hi Ben,
--- Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see java-runtime as a similar situation. I take a
> simple Java app
> that will run on any JVM that is reasonably
> complete, and I want to just
> have Depends: java1-runtime, allowing the user to
> download whatever JVM
> they see fit. I do
> If I may make a proposal, as someone who's just a
> lurker here, I'd say remove the 'provides
> javax-runtime' tag from the free VM releases that
> obviously lack the functionality of the tagged JDK
> release, according to japitools. But only allow Java
> programs to get into 'debain free' if th
Hi Ben,
--- Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to point out that I wasn't advocating
> that
> > the debian maintainer tracks all VMs available
> for
> > debian all the time. Just that she specifies a
> (i.e.
> > at least one ;) free VM that the application works
> > with in ord
> I'd like to point out that I wasn't advocating that
> the debian maintainer tracks all VMs available for
> debian all the time. Just that she specifies a (i.e.
> at least one ;) free VM that the application works
> with in order to be in 'debian-free'.
Mm.. what worries me about this is that i
Hi Ben,
--- Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see java-runtime as a similar situation. I take a
> simple Java app
> that will run on any JVM that is reasonably
> complete, and I want to just
> have Depends: java1-runtime, allowing the user to
> download whatever JVM
> they see fit. I do
> If I may make a proposal, as someone who's just a
> lurker here, I'd say remove the 'provides
> javax-runtime' tag from the free VM releases that
> obviously lack the functionality of the tagged JDK
> release, according to japitools. But only allow Java
> programs to get into 'debain free' if th
Hi
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:30:07AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Hi Ola,
>
> --- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well then we have to have an alternative approach to
> > this.
> >
> > javaX-core-classes (I assume that there are
This is the java.lang.* and such things that nee
Hi Ola,
--- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well then we have to have an alternative approach to
> this.
>
> javaX-core-classes (I assume that there are
> differences between versions there)
> javaX?-awt
> javaX?-swing
>
> Then java1-runtime depends on java1-core-classes,
> java1-awt
Hi
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:30:07AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Hi Ola,
>
> --- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well then we have to have an alternative approach to
> > this.
> >
> > javaX-core-classes (I assume that there are
This is the java.lang.* and such things that nee
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:01:56AM -0500, Jesse Stockall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> > >
> > > If AWT / GUI stuf
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 04:51:11PM +, Geoff Beaumont wrote:
> Jesse Stockall wrote:
> >Only packages that provide a complete JDK 1.1 class library and
> >functioning VM should provide java1-runtime. Same for java2-runtime.
> >
> >For the same reason that Microsoft does not call their VM a
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 11:34:20AM -0800, T. Alexander Popiel wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> >> I think it would make sense to define virtual packag
Hi Ola,
--- Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well then we have to have an alternative approach to
> this.
>
> javaX-core-classes (I assume that there are
> differences between versions there)
> javaX?-awt
> javaX?-swing
>
> Then java1-runtime depends on java1-core-classes,
> java1-awt
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 10:01:56AM -0500, Jesse Stockall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> > >
> > > If AWT / GUI stuf
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 04:51:11PM +, Geoff Beaumont wrote:
> Jesse Stockall wrote:
> >Only packages that provide a complete JDK 1.1 class library and
> >functioning VM should provide java1-runtime. Same for java2-runtime.
> >
> >For the same reason that Microsoft does not call their VM a
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 11:34:20AM -0800, T. Alexander Popiel wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> >> I think it would make sense to define virtual packag
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
>> I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
>> (and possibly java2-swing-runtime).
>
>This is not a ba
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
>> I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
>> (and possibly java2-swing-runtime).
>
>This is not a ba
Jesse Stockall wrote:
Only packages that provide a complete JDK 1.1 class library and functioning VM
should provide java1-runtime. Same for java2-runtime.
For the same reason that Microsoft does not call their VM a Java VM,
Debian should not pretend that JDK 1.1 didn't include AWT.
If there is a
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> >
> > If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> > I think it would ma
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 09:33:28AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
> >
> > If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> > I think it would ma
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:06:37PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
>
> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> I think it would make sen
> If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
(and possibly java2-swing-ru
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:06:37PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> > java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
>
> If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
> I think it would make sen
> If you have better definitions on how to define java1-runtime and/or
> java2-runtime, I'm grateful for such propositions.
If AWT / GUI stuff is a particular problem (which is my understanding),
I think it would make sense to define virtual packages java1-awt-runtime
(and possibly java2-swing-ru
Hello
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 08:03:56PM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> W li?cie z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
*SNIP*
> > >
> > > I searched for "runtime" in Java Policy (as found in java-common
> > > package) and couldn't find such explict statment.
> I meant sta
W liście z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
> > java1-runtime
> > thanks
> >
> > W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Za
Hello
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 08:03:56PM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> W li?cie z nie, 19-01-2003, godz. 17:23, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
*SNIP*
> > >
> > > I searched for "runtime" in Java Policy (as found in java-common
> > > package) and couldn't find such explict statment.
> I meant sta
Hi
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
> java1-runtime
> thanks
>
> W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Zander pisze:
> > Package: sablevm
> > Version: 1.0.5-1
> > Severity: important
Hi
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
> java1-runtime
> thanks
>
> W li?cie z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Zander pisze:
> > Package: sablevm
> > Version: 1.0.5-1
> > Severity: important
retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
java1-runtime
thanks
W liście z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Zander pisze:
> Package: sablevm
> Version: 1.0.5-1
> Severity: important
>
> According to the Java policy, packages that provide java1-runtime must
> support the t
retitle 176628 java.awt.* classess don't work as expected for
java1-runtime
thanks
W liście z pon, 13-01-2003, godz. 18:26, Stephen Zander pisze:
> Package: sablevm
> Version: 1.0.5-1
> Severity: important
>
> According to the Java policy, packages that provide java1-runtime must
> support the t
41 matches
Mail list logo
