-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
PowerPC Java Devs,
~What methods are people using when they need a dummy package to
satisfy Java 2 SDK requirements for PowerPC? I am currently unable to
build a package from source due to dependency issues related to not
having a Java 2 package
> "MS" == Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> Blackdown is not Debian. Unless Debian has permission to
MS> redistribute, it cannot go in non-free.
Mark, did you actuall read what I wrote?
> "AJ" == A J Rossini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AJ> 511$ more /usr/doc/j2sdk1
> "MS" == Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> From: Stephen Zander
>> Yes, Blackdown does have permission to redistribute j2se. The
>> copyright file includes the additional terms that apply to
>> Backdown mirrors and Linux distributions (including Debian).
>> Is
From: Stephen Zander
> Yes, Blackdown does have permission to redistribute j2se. The
> copyright file includes the additional terms that apply to Backdown
> mirrors and Linux distributions (including Debian). Is there anything
> in those terms that is unclear?
Blackdown is not Debian. Unless D
> "Egon" == Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Egon> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be able to answer
Egon> this...
Yes, Blackdown does have permission to redistribute j2se. The
copyright file includes the additional terms that apply to Backdown
mirrors and Linux
> "MS" == Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> Blackdown is not Debian. Unless Debian has permission to
MS> redistribute, it cannot go in non-free.
Mark, did you actuall read what I wrote?
> "AJ" == A J Rossini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AJ> 511$ more /usr/doc/j2sdk
> "MS" == Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS> From: Stephen Zander
>> Yes, Blackdown does have permission to redistribute j2se. The
>> copyright file includes the additional terms that apply to
>> Backdown mirrors and Linux distributions (including Debian).
>> Is
From: Stephen Zander
> Yes, Blackdown does have permission to redistribute j2se. The
> copyright file includes the additional terms that apply to Backdown
> mirrors and Linux distributions (including Debian). Is there anything
> in those terms that is unclear?
Blackdown is not Debian. Unless
> "Egon" == Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Egon> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> should be able to answer
Egon> this...
Yes, Blackdown does have permission to redistribute j2se. The
copyright file includes the additional terms that apply to Backdown
mirrors and Linux
On Monday 08 October 2001 08:17, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was under the impression from the discussions this spring that the
> > Blackdown folks had got explicit permission from Sun for Debian to
> > distribute the JDK in non-free.
>
> If such permission
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression from the discussions this spring that the
> Blackdown folks had got explicit permission from Sun for Debian to
> distribute the JDK in non-free.
If such permission exists it should be mentioned in the packages
copyright file. I
On Monday 08 October 2001 08:17, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was under the impression from the discussions this spring that the
> > Blackdown folks had got explicit permission from Sun for Debian to
> > distribute the JDK in non-free.
>
> If such permissio
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression from the discussions this spring that the
> Blackdown folks had got explicit permission from Sun for Debian to
> distribute the JDK in non-free.
If such permission exists it should be mentioned in the packages
copyright file.
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 08:44:27PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > One interesting thing I did see was in the Sun Supplemental License
> > terms, point 2:
>
> > | (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace
> > | any compon
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> What precisely is your objection to this discussion? So we only
Ben> have the blackdown port now. Maybe in a year or two kaffe will
Ben> support java2. Maybe the gcj people will support java2. Maybe
Ben> not.
The core parts of libgcj
> Stephen (jdk (yes, all of them) maintainer)
Am I missing something here? AFAICT, alternative runtimes such as kaffe,
orp and the IBM JVM, as well as alternative compilers such as jikes, the
kaffe compiler and gcj, are all maintained by other people. Perhaps I'm
looking in the wrong places her
> Until, and unless, there exists even the wiff of an alternate Java2
> implementation *in Debian*, I flat out don't see the point of this.
What precisely is your objection to this discussion? So we only have the
blackdown port now. Maybe in a year or two kaffe will support java2.
Maybe the gcj
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Virtual package java2-runtime is fine with me. I'm even
Ben> happy with provides: java-virtual-machine, java2-runtime
Ben> since the former says "I do java" and the latter is more
Ben> designed to specify a version of the c
> > * Should we have a java2-compiler too?
>
> This probably should be discussed. It would be nice for Build-depends:
> lines in debian/control files.
FWIW, since build-depends is not intended for the general user, I tend to
favour explicit build-depends such as
Build-Depends: jikes
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> What precisely is your objection to this discussion? So we only
Ben> have the blackdown port now. Maybe in a year or two kaffe will
Ben> support java2. Maybe the gcj people will support java2. Maybe
Ben> not.
The core parts of libgcj
> Stephen (jdk (yes, all of them) maintainer)
Am I missing something here? AFAICT, alternative runtimes such as kaffe,
orp and the IBM JVM, as well as alternative compilers such as jikes, the
kaffe compiler and gcj, are all maintained by other people. Perhaps I'm
looking in the wrong places he
> Until, and unless, there exists even the wiff of an alternate Java2
> implementation *in Debian*, I flat out don't see the point of this.
What precisely is your objection to this discussion? So we only have the
blackdown port now. Maybe in a year or two kaffe will support java2.
Maybe the gc
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Virtual package java2-runtime is fine with me. I'm even
Ben> happy with provides: java-virtual-machine, java2-runtime
Ben> since the former says "I do java" and the latter is more
Ben> designed to specify a version of the
> > * Should we have a java2-compiler too?
>
> This probably should be discussed. It would be nice for Build-depends:
> lines in debian/control files.
FWIW, since build-depends is not intended for the general user, I tend to
favour explicit build-depends such as
Build-Depends: jikes
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 02:04:19PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > Ok this shounds good, but some things before I'll add it to the
> > policy.
> >
> > * Should we have a java2-compiler too?
>
> This probably should be discussed. It would be ni
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Ok this shounds good, but some things before I'll add it to the
> policy.
>
> * Should we have a java2-compiler too?
This probably should be discussed. It would be nice for Build-depends:
lines in debian/control files.
> * The java-vir
cy change does not
> sounds a good thing...
Well there are just a proposed policy yet... :)
> Can everyone approve with java2-virtual-machine for Woody and
> java[2]-runtime for Sid?
Well maybe we should do like this instead:
* Keep java-virtual-machine (for the virtual machine)
* Start using
in favour of java(1?)-runtime for java1 packages.
> I think it's important to keep things consistent.
I agree. And since we are rather close to a freeze, a policy change does not
sounds a good thing...
Can everyone approve with java2-virtual-machine for Woody and
java[2]-runtime for Sid?
Egon
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> I tend to agree that the name java2-virtual-machine is a little
> misleading and perhaps silly (a remnant from when "virtual machine"
> was a hot buzzword). Perhaps something like java2-runtime?
java2-runtime is fine with me. My only concern i
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 02:04:19PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> > Ok this shounds good, but some things before I'll add it to the
> > policy.
> >
> > * Should we have a java2-compiler too?
>
> This probably should be discussed. It would be n
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Ok this shounds good, but some things before I'll add it to the
> policy.
>
> * Should we have a java2-compiler too?
This probably should be discussed. It would be nice for Build-depends:
lines in debian/control files.
> * The java-vi
cy change does not
> sounds a good thing...
Well there are just a proposed policy yet... :)
> Can everyone approve with java2-virtual-machine for Woody and
> java[2]-runtime for Sid?
Well maybe we should do like this instead:
* Keep java-virtual-machine (for the virtual machine)
* Start using
in favour of java(1?)-runtime for java1 packages.
> I think it's important to keep things consistent.
I agree. And since we are rather close to a freeze, a policy change does not
sounds a good thing...
Can everyone approve with java2-virtual-machine for Woody and
java[2]-runtime for Sid?
Eg
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> I tend to agree that the name java2-virtual-machine is a little
> misleading and perhaps silly (a remnant from when "virtual machine"
> was a hot buzzword). Perhaps something like java2-runtime?
java2-runtime is fine with me. My only concern
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 03:13:35PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > > provide java-virtual-machine ?
> >
> > Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
> >
>
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 03:13:35PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > > provide java-virtual-machine ?
> >
> > Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
> >
> I think his (Juergen's) point is that j2re is simply a better
> description of this claim than java2-virtual-machine.
True, but my concern was that the current blackdown packages seem to be
named j2re1.3 and j2sdk1.3, and I'd personally be happier if the virtual
package doesn't appear tied to a
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 05:41:08PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
> > means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
> >
> > Our new packages currently provide j2re and j2re..
>
&g
> I think his (Juergen's) point is that j2re is simply a better
> description of this claim than java2-virtual-machine.
True, but my concern was that the current blackdown packages seem to be
named j2re1.3 and j2sdk1.3, and I'd personally be happier if the virtual
package doesn't appear tied to
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 05:41:08PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
> > means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
> >
> > Our new packages currently provide j2re and j2re..
>
&g
> java2-virtual-machine and java2-compiler are both appropriate at some
> point, but as there isn't even *one* Java2 environment officially in
> Debian yet, I think you're jumping the gun.
Have a look through the debian-java archives; unless I've read it wrong,
it seems the blackdown java2 enviro
> java2-virtual-machine and java2-compiler are both appropriate at some
> point, but as there isn't even *one* Java2 environment officially in
> Debian yet, I think you're jumping the gun.
Have a look through the debian-java archives; unless I've read it wrong,
it seems the blackdown java2 envir
machine" unless it actually
> means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
Oh, but it is... Java2 programs can then "depend" on this
java2-virtual-machine... Java2 implementations like your new packages will
provide this "java2-virtual-machine" package... it is much
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Alas I don't see an easy way around this. In the meantime,
Ben> java2-virtual-machine at least gives the java1.1 vs java2
Ben> distinction whilst being consistent with current policy and
Ben> not singling out any particular
l-machine" unless it actually
> means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
Oh, but it is... Java2 programs can then "depend" on this
java2-virtual-machine... Java2 implementations like your new packages will
provide this "java2-virtual-machine" package... it is much
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> Alas I don't see an easy way around this. In the meantime,
Ben> java2-virtual-machine at least gives the java1.1 vs java2
Ben> distinction whilst being consistent with current policy and
Ben> not singling out any particula
> I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
> means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
The idea is that much as I love the blackdown port, one wants to allow for
multiple JVMs that all offer a runtime environment that claims to be more or
l
Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I totally agree with your plans to change the policy to include a
> java2-virtual-machine concept...
I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
> I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
> means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
The idea is that much as I love the blackdown port, one wants to allow for
multiple JVMs that all offer a runtime environment that claims to be more or
l
Egon Willighagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I totally agree with your plans to change the policy to include a
> java2-virtual-machine concept...
I don't see much value in "java2-virtual-machine" unless it actually
means a complete Java 2 runtime environment.
Hi Egon,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2001 19:26, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> > > comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> > > in hearing any other proposal
> BTW, what would the correct way to change the Java policy?
Not sure. I'd do it by raising discussion on this list and filing a wishlist
bug against java-common, which contains the java policy.
But maybe I just don't know better. :)
Ben.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Friday 07 September 2001 19:26, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> > comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> > in hearing any other proposals, comments, etc.
>
> Yes, that sounds like a good idea..
On Friday 07 September 2001 15:13, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > > provide java-virtual-machine ?
> >
> > Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
> >
> > No, I mean for instanc
Hi Egon,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Friday 07 September 2001 19:26, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> > > comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> > > in hearing any other proposa
> BTW, what would the correct way to change the Java policy?
Not sure. I'd do it by raising discussion on this list and filing a wishlist
bug against java-common, which contains the java policy.
But maybe I just don't know better. :)
Ben.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECT
On Friday 07 September 2001 19:26, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > Perhaps we should wait a few days to see if any others have
> > comments/thoughts they would like to add, as I'm more than interested
> > in hearing any other proposals, comments, etc.
>
> Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
On Friday 07 September 2001 15:13, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > > provide java-virtual-machine ?
> >
> > Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
> >
> > No, I mean for instan
> How does that sound ?
Works for me. :)
b.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://baasil.humbug.org.au/bab/
Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People can be so vicious toward the imaginary world and it saddens
me. You kill a lot of little people's dreams that w
Hi Ben,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > provide java-virtual-machine ?
>
> Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
>
> No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
> j2s
> Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> provide java-virtual-machine ?
Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
j2sdk1.3 should provide both java-virtual-machine and java2-
> How does that sound ?
Works for me. :)
b.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://baasil.humbug.org.au/bab/
Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People can be so vicious toward the imaginary world and it saddens
me. You kill a lot of little people's dreams that
Hi Ben,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> > Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> > provide java-virtual-machine ?
>
> Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
>
> No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
> j2
> Do you mean that the java2-virtual-machine-dummy package should also
> provide java-virtual-machine ?
Well, that too, but that's not what I meant. :)
No, I mean for instance kaffe should provide java-virtual-machine, but
j2sdk1.3 should provide both java-virtual-machine and java2
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > java2-virtual-machine/dummy packages would help settle dependancies for non
> > Debian packaged JDK's, java2 compliant Debian packages could 'provide'
> > this. We could then 'depend' on it.
> > ,,,
> > ... perhaps we should introduce java2 in /etc/alte
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > java2-virtual-machine/dummy packages would help settle dependancies for non
> > Debian packaged JDK's, java2 compliant Debian packages could 'provide'
> > this. We could then 'depend' on it.
> > ,,,
> > ... perhaps we should introduce java2 in /etc/alt
> java2-virtual-machine/dummy packages would help settle dependancies for non
> Debian packaged JDK's, java2 compliant Debian packages could 'provide'
> this. We could then 'depend' on it.
> ,,,
> ... perhaps we should introduce java2 in /etc/alternatives ?
FWIW, I like both of these ideas.
I th
> java2-virtual-machine/dummy packages would help settle dependancies for non
> Debian packaged JDK's, java2 compliant Debian packages could 'provide'
> this. We could then 'depend' on it.
> ,,,
> ... perhaps we should introduce java2 in /etc/alternatives ?
FWIW, I like both of these ideas.
I t
t;
> > This way, a user can install Sun's or IBM's JDK to /usr/local and install
> > your package without breaking its dependencies. You could test if the
> > JVM is Java 2 (either "java -version" or looking for
> > $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/rt.jar) and print
t;
> > This way, a user can install Sun's or IBM's JDK to /usr/local and install
> > your package without breaking its dependencies. You could test if the
> > JVM is Java 2 (either "java -version" or looking for
> > $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/rt.jar) and print
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One point to note is that j2sdk1.3 and j2re1.3 are not yet in debian
> at all. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that a package in
> debian can't depend on a package outside of debian.
I asked about this on IRC a while ago in the context of emacs21; a
n
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One point to note is that j2sdk1.3 and j2re1.3 are not yet in debian
> at all. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that a package in
> debian can't depend on a package outside of debian.
I asked about this on IRC a while ago in the context of emacs21; a
IBM's JDK to /usr/local and install
> your package without breaking its dependencies. You could test if the
> JVM is Java 2 (either "java -version" or looking for
> $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/rt.jar) and print an error message if it's just JDK1.1.
If you're using /usr/b
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:42:16PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> JPDA is a Java 2 platform thing, and will only work with Java 2
> sdk/jdk's - is there a current policy recommendation for specifying
> this in 'depend' lists ?
I suggest to use "j2sdk1.3 | j2re1.
Hi All,
Hope all is well.
I'm currently packaging up JSwat for Debian. JSwat is a really cool
JPDA debugger. The package is just about ready, but I have a
housekeeping question:
JPDA is a Java 2 platform thing, and will only work with Java 2
IBM's JDK to /usr/local and install
> your package without breaking its dependencies. You could test if the
> JVM is Java 2 (either "java -version" or looking for
> $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/rt.jar) and print an error message if it's just JDK1.1.
If you're using /usr/b
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:42:16PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> JPDA is a Java 2 platform thing, and will only work with Java 2
> sdk/jdk's - is there a current policy recommendation for specifying
> this in 'depend' lists ?
I suggest to use "j2sdk1.3 | j2re1.
Hi All,
Hope all is well.
I'm currently packaging up JSwat for Debian. JSwat is a really cool
JPDA debugger. The package is just about ready, but I have a
housekeeping question:
JPDA is a Java 2 platform thing, and will only work with Java 2
>>>>> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> I also would imagine that some day there will be free Java2
AR> implementation. And we could drop non-free :)
Well, I believe anyone who -wants- there to be a Free Java 2
implementation in Deb
>>>>> "AR" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> I also would imagine that some day there will be free Java2
AR> implementation. And we could drop non-free :)
Well, I believe anyone who -wants- there to be a Free Java 2
implementation in
> "Nicolas" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm talking to Sun about a possible amendment to our license which
>> would allow our deb packages to go into Debian (non-free). Currently
>> I'm waiting for feedback from Sun's legal department.
Nicolás> BTW, y
> "Nicolas" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm talking to Sun about a possible amendment to our license which
>> would allow our deb packages to go into Debian (non-free). Currently
>> I'm waiting for feedback from Sun's legal department.
Nicolás> BTW,
> I'm talking to Sun about a possible amendment to our license which
> would allow our deb packages to go into Debian (non-free). Currently
> I'm waiting for feedback from Sun's legal department.
BTW, you are listed as the maintainer of the Blackdown packages, I'd like
to make some comments abou
> I'm talking to Sun about a possible amendment to our license which
> would allow our deb packages to go into Debian (non-free). Currently
> I'm waiting for feedback from Sun's legal department.
BTW, you are listed as the maintainer of the Blackdown packages, I'd like
to make some comments abo
According to Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > According to Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Do you have the latest version from IBM?
> >
> > Should be.
> >
> > > I think there was an upgrade in the last month.
>
> The most recent one I downloaded (in the last week) is:
>
>
According to Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > According to Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Do you have the latest version from IBM?
> >
> > Should be.
> >
> > > I think there was an upgrade in the last month.
>
> The most recent one I downloaded (in the last week) is:
>
>
Not that I'm aware of.
cc
"S.Salman Ahmed" wrote:
>
> > "CC" == Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CC> The most recent one I downloaded (in the last week) is:
> CC>
> CC> IBMJava2-SDK-13.tgz, size in bytes: 32191540
> CC>
> CC> IBM doesn't put version
Not that I'm aware of.
cc
"S.Salman Ahmed" wrote:
>
> > "CC" == Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CC> The most recent one I downloaded (in the last week) is:
> CC>
> CC> IBMJava2-SDK-13.tgz, size in bytes: 32191540
> CC>
> CC> IBM doesn't put versio
> According to Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Do you have the latest version from IBM?
>
> Should be.
>
> > I think there was an upgrade in the last month.
The most recent one I downloaded (in the last week) is:
IBMJava2-SDK-13.tgz, size in bytes: 32191540
IBM doesn't put ve
> According to Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Do you have the latest version from IBM?
>
> Should be.
>
> > I think there was an upgrade in the last month.
The most recent one I downloaded (in the last week) is:
IBMJava2-SDK-13.tgz, size in bytes: 32191540
IBM doesn't put v
According to Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Do you have the latest version from IBM?
Should be.
> I think there was an upgrade in the last month.
Hmm, can't find such info on IBM's website, but then those pages are
quite messy... :-/
--
* H e i k k i K a n t o l a * | Report
According to Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Do you have the latest version from IBM?
Should be.
> I think there was an upgrade in the last month.
Hmm, can't find such info on IBM's website, but then those pages are
quite messy... :-/
--
* H e i k k i K a n t o l a * | Repor
Do you have the latest version from IBM? I think there was an upgrade
in the last month.
cc
Heikki Kantola wrote:
>
> While ago I had the IBM Java 2 SDK 1.3 running fine on my Debian box. But
> then came various upgrades (glibc 2.2 and XFree 4.01 being the prime
> suspects) a
Do you have the latest version from IBM? I think there was an upgrade
in the last month.
cc
Heikki Kantola wrote:
>
> While ago I had the IBM Java 2 SDK 1.3 running fine on my Debian box. But
> then came various upgrades (glibc 2.2 and XFree 4.01 being the prime
> suspects) a
While ago I had the IBM Java 2 SDK 1.3 running fine on my Debian box. But
then came various upgrades (glibc 2.2 and XFree 4.01 being the prime
suspects) and these JDK programs have started to give segmentation faults
when I try to run them. I'm quite puzzled what's wrong and would love
While ago I had the IBM Java 2 SDK 1.3 running fine on my Debian box. But
then came various upgrades (glibc 2.2 and XFree 4.01 being the prime
suspects) and these JDK programs have started to give segmentation faults
when I try to run them. I'm quite puzzled what's wrong and would love
> "Juergen" == Juergen Kreileder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Artur" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Artur> Are ther any plans to include latest java VM (1.2 or 1.3)
Artur> in Debian?
Juergen> We have Debian packages for Java2 v1.3, Java3D 1.2 and
Juergen> JA
> "Juergen" == Juergen Kreileder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Artur" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Artur> Are ther any plans to include latest java VM (1.2 or 1.3)
Artur> in Debian?
Juergen> We have Debian packages for Java2 v1.3, Java3D 1.2 and
Juergen> J
> "Artur" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Artur> Are ther any plans to include latest java VM (1.2 or 1.3)
Artur> in Debian?
We have Debian packages for Java2 v1.3, Java3D 1.2 and JAI 1.0.2. The
packages will be available from our mirrors
(http://www.blackdown.org/mirror.
> "Artur" == Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Artur> Are ther any plans to include latest java VM (1.2 or 1.3)
Artur> in Debian?
We have Debian packages for Java2 v1.3, Java3D 1.2 and JAI 1.0.2. The
packages will be available from our mirrors
(http://www.blackdown.org/mirror
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
