Joe Emenaker wrote:
> For this reason, I kinda have to keep JDK 1.0 around. However, I
> sometimes need JDK 1.1 for other projects. As things stand now, I
> either have to keep them on separate machines or wrestle with the
> stuff in /etc/alternates.
I've run into the same problem. (I've got sev
Joe Emenaker wrote:
> For this reason, I kinda have to keep JDK 1.0 around. However, I
> sometimes need JDK 1.1 for other projects. As things stand now, I
> either have to keep them on separate machines or wrestle with the
> stuff in /etc/alternates.
I've run into the same problem. (I've got se
[Joe, a 72-column word-wrap would make reading your email significantly
easier I have word-wrapped it in order to make my response at all
intellegible...]
* Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001019 01:34]:
> As things stand now, I either have to keep them on separate machines
> or wrestle with
I browsed through the latest Debian Java Policy
doc, but didn't see anything that looked like it addressed this problem, so I'll
ask...
One of my clients has a web site that's visited by
people with old browsers that don't really handle applets compiled by JDK 1.1 or
higher. For this reaso
[Joe, a 72-column word-wrap would make reading your email significantly
easier I have word-wrapped it in order to make my response at all
intellegible...]
* Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001019 01:34]:
> As things stand now, I either have to keep them on separate machines
> or wrestle wit
I browsed through the latest Debian Java Policy
doc, but didn't see anything that looked like it addressed this problem, so I'll
ask...
One of my clients has a web site that's visited by
people with old browsers that don't really handle applets compiled by JDK 1.1 or
higher. For this reaso
6 matches
Mail list logo