On 13/04/2013 12:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 12.04.2013 13:41, schrieb Sylvestre Ledru:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Maybe I am missing a point but I have the feeling that the -gcj packages
>> are now a bit useless.
>
> no. why should they be useless?
As I said, it was my perception. Looks like I was wrong
Am 12.04.2013 13:41, schrieb Sylvestre Ledru:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe I am missing a point but I have the feeling that the -gcj packages
> are now a bit useless.
no. why should they be useless?
> gcj does not seem a very active project [1] and my perception is that
> not many people are using gcj pac
Le 12/04/2013 13:41, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit :
> Maybe I am missing a point but I have the feeling that the -gcj packages
> are now a bit useless.
> gcj does not seem a very active project [1] and my perception is that
> not many people are using gcj packages instead
> of the "java package".
I wa
On 2013-04-12 13:41, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hey,
> Maybe I am missing a point but I have the feeling that the -gcj packages
> are now a bit useless.
> gcj does not seem a very active project [1] and my perception is that
> not many people are using gcj packages instead of the "java pa
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe I am missing a point but I have the feeling that the -gcj packages
> are now a bit useless.
> gcj does not seem a very active project [1] and my perception is that
> not many people are using gcj packages instead
> of the "
Hello,
Maybe I am missing a point but I have the feeling that the -gcj packages
are now a bit useless.
gcj does not seem a very active project [1] and my perception is that
not many people are using gcj packages instead
of the "java package".
For example, two "famous" java packages providing -gcj
6 matches
Mail list logo