Re: Java FAQ needs updating for GCJ

2002-02-25 Thread Rick Lutowski
Per Bothner wrote: > > Rick Lutowski wrote: > > Is this due to awt peers not being available for GCJ? > > No - (some) peers are available. The political and license issues > have been resolved recently, and the Classpath AWT code has been > merged in. Tom Tromey has done a fair bit recently, bu

Re: Java FAQ needs updating for GCJ

2002-02-25 Thread Rick Lutowski
Per Bothner wrote: > > Rick Lutowski wrote: > > Is this due to awt peers not being available for GCJ? > > No - (some) peers are available. The political and license issues > have been resolved recently, and the Classpath AWT code has been > merged in. Tom Tromey has done a fair bit recently, b

Re: Java FAQ needs updating for GCJ

2002-02-24 Thread Per Bothner
Rick Lutowski wrote: * GCJ (except for GUI application - AWT is still not usable). Is this due to awt peers not being available for GCJ? No - (some) peers are available. The political and license issues have been resolved recently, and the Classpath AWT code has been merged in. Tom Tromey has don

Re: Java FAQ needs updating for GCJ

2002-02-24 Thread Per Bothner
Rick Lutowski wrote: >>* GCJ (except for GUI application - AWT is still not usable). >> > > Is this due to awt peers not being available for GCJ? No - (some) peers are available. The political and license issues have been resolved recently, and the Classpath AWT code has been merged in. Tom Tr

Re: Java FAQ needs updating for GCJ

2002-02-24 Thread Rick Lutowski
Per Bothner wrote: > > 2.1 full-fledged Java development > > Pleae add: > > * GCJ (except for GUI application - AWT is still not usable). Is this due to awt peers not being available for GCJ? > 2.3.1.5 Why is (some) free software not implementing Java2? > >Sun has made public statements

Re: Java FAQ needs updating for GCJ

2002-02-24 Thread Rick Lutowski
Per Bothner wrote: > > 2.1 full-fledged Java development > > Pleae add: > > * GCJ (except for GUI application - AWT is still not usable). Is this due to awt peers not being available for GCJ? > 2.3.1.5 Why is (some) free software not implementing Java2? > >Sun has made public statement

Java FAQ needs updating for GCJ

2002-02-24 Thread Per Bothner
The Debian Java FAQ still does give GCJ its proper due. (I'm senstive about this, since I think in general I think more people should try gcj.) I'd appreciate it if you made the following changes: 1.6.1: Java1 compiler (.java to .class) Please remove the sentence " but might not be able to compile

Java FAQ needs updating for GCJ

2002-02-24 Thread Per Bothner
The Debian Java FAQ still does give GCJ its proper due. (I'm senstive about this, since I think in general I think more people should try gcj.) I'd appreciate it if you made the following changes: 1.6.1: Java1 compiler (.java to .class) Please remove the sentence " but might not be able to comp