On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:55:22AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
>
Hi
There are several reasons why they are split.
1) some compilers do not require a jvm.
2) Some things compile the classes to bytecode the will not
need the jvm. This is why it is very explictly written in the
java policy
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:55:22AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
>
Hi
There are several reasons why they are split.
1) some compilers do not require a jvm.
2) Some things compile the classes to bytecode the will not
need the jvm. This is why it is very explictly written in the
java policy
Stephen Zander wrote:
Depending on the core classes does not provide javac which is what the
autobuilders actually require.
The build dependencies for Java packages could be for example:
jikes, classpath, lib*-java (all other required Java packages)
If all lib*-java packages in main depend on java1
Ok, I should stop reading mail at 3am...
> "Simon" == Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> I think the autobuilder argument is valid. Autobuilders
Simon> need the classes, but not the VM. If at all, you can make
Simon> the VMs depend on the core classes, so people can
> "Simon" == Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> I think the autobuilder argument is valid. Autobuilders
Simon> need the classes, but not the VM. If at all, you can make
Simon> the VMs depend on the core classes, so people can depend on
Simon> the core classes for c
Stephen,
> Ola, we go round and round on this. Having java1-runtime only mean
> the java.* classes doesn't add anything. Packages shouldn't have to
> depend on two virtual packages; java1-rutime should be a superset of
> the functionality of java-virual-machine not a disjoint set.
I think the a
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> This is false. If the package provides the core classes it
Ola> should provide java1-runtime but NOT java-virtual-machine. If
Ola> it provides the virtual-machine it should provide
Ola> java-virtual-machine. If this is no
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> This is false. If the package provides the core classes it
Ola> should provide java1-runtime but NOT java-virtual-machine. If
Ola> it provides the virtual-machine it should provide
Ola> java-virtual-machine. If this is no
Stephen,
> Ola, we go round and round on this. Having java1-runtime only mean
> the java.* classes doesn't add anything. Packages shouldn't have to
> depend on two virtual packages; java1-rutime should be a superset of
> the functionality of java-virual-machine not a disjoint set.
I think the a
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:43:55PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefan> Currently the following packages in testing provide
> Stefan> java1-runtime: gij-3.0, gij-3.2, orp-classpath and
> Stefan> sablevm. All of them include
> "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> Currently the following packages in testing provide
Stefan> java1-runtime: gij-3.0, gij-3.2, orp-classpath and
Stefan> sablevm. All of them include (or depend on) a Java virtual
Stefan> machine so if I add this depen
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:43:55PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Stefan" == Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefan> Currently the following packages in testing provide
> Stefan> java1-runtime: gij-3.0, gij-3.2, orp-classpath and
> Stefan> sablevm. All of them include
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 09:33:49AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> To that end I will be filing important bugs against any lib*-java
> package that does not depend on either java1-runtime or java2-runtime
> (should the package required features of the standard java.* classes
> that are only include
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 09:33:49AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> To that end I will be filing important bugs against any lib*-java
> package that does not depend on either java1-runtime or java2-runtime
> (should the package required features of the standard java.* classes
> that are only include
14 matches
Mail list logo
