Done deal! :-)
Thanks, Eric
Andrew Ross said:
> On 22/10/11 11:19, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>>
>> * libjcalendar-java - used to be a dependency of FreeMind, not anymore,
>> dependency of no package, and popcon 52 - candidate for removal!
>>
>
> Eric,
>
> Please don't request removal of this one - I'm
On 22/10/11 11:19, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>
> * libjcalendar-java - used to be a dependency of FreeMind, not anymore,
> dependency of no package, and popcon 52 - candidate for removal!
>
Eric,
Please don't request removal of this one - I'm planning to upload a
package which depends on this when I
Hello Cedric,
On 22/10/11 13:24, Cédric Pineau wrote:
Hello Eric.
I once waited for an answer from Christine regarding freemind and then
forgot it all, but I'm still interested in packaging it and related libs.
I currently trying to package EJS with Georges Khaznadar (Georges is
debian m
Hello Eric.
I once waited for an answer from Christine regarding freemind and then
forgot it all, but I'm still interested in packaging it and related libs.
I currently trying to package EJS with Georges Khaznadar (Georges is debian
maintener and EJS user with little java knowledge, I'm a java
Hello,
I didn't find any time for quite a long time to maintain my packages,
and before their quality suffers under my lack of attention, I'd prefer
to properly manage my "retirement", and would like to hear your advices,
and possibly take of ownership.
Based on [1], list of packages I'm mai
[Alex, please wrap your lines at 74 characters. Thank you.]
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010315 11:51]:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:15:53 -0500
> Benjamin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i think a better question is why has this thread been going on this long?
> If you want to know
[Alex, please wrap your lines at 74 characters. Thank you.]
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010315 11:51]:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:15:53 -0500
> Benjamin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i think a better question is why has this thread been going on this long?
> If you want to kno
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:59:08 EAT
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I _am_ a Java programmer. Insult me like that again, and I'll give you a
> > well-deserved line in my .procmailrc.
> I'm just curious, what _kind_ of java programmer you are? You don't need
> to test compability among diff
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:43:41 EAT
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I'm guessing this guy(you, Alex) thought java.security only apply to web
> application.
>
> On the contrary, you can lift many of the security measure in writing
> web-based applets as the browser VM already restrict a
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:15:53 -0500
Benjamin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> of what relevance is this to the discussion of java on debian?
>
> i think a better question is why has this thread been going on this long?
>
> if everyone can answer the first question with "none" and the second
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:38:11 EAT
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are being deliberately provocative. Of course one can build a
> > serious application without java.security. One can even build a
> > secure application without it, though java.security gives you better
> > control.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:59:08 EAT
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I _am_ a Java programmer. Insult me like that again, and I'll give you a
> > well-deserved line in my .procmailrc.
> I'm just curious, what _kind_ of java programmer you are? You don't need
> to test compability among dif
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:43:41 EAT
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I'm guessing this guy(you, Alex) thought java.security only apply to web
> application.
>
> On the contrary, you can lift many of the security measure in writing
> web-based applets as the browser VM already restrict a
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:15:53 -0500
Benjamin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> of what relevance is this to the discussion of java on debian?
>
> i think a better question is why has this thread been going on this long?
>
> if everyone can answer the first question with "none" and the second
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:38:11 EAT
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are being deliberately provocative. Of course one can build a
> > serious application without java.security. One can even build a
> > secure application without it, though java.security gives you better
> > control.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 05:47:12PM +0300, Alan KF LAU wrote:
> > This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsoft contract
> > referred to has only funded a very small part of Kaffe. (I have had
> > contact with Tim Wilkinson and Kaffe since before there was a
> > Transvirtual, and in fact
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 05:47:12PM +0300, Alan KF LAU wrote:
> > This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsoft contract
> > referred to has only funded a very small part of Kaffe. (I have had
> > contact with Tim Wilkinson and Kaffe since before there was a
> > Transvirtual, and in fact
of what relevance is this to the discussion of java on debian?
i think a better question is why has this thread been going on this long?
if everyone can answer the first question with "none" and the second
with "i don't know", then perhaps we can stop this flame war. what do
you guys think?
tak
> I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect".
Thanks.
> "commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, transaction-based".
> And of course one can build commercial-level "in-house" transaction-based
> without java.security - it just makes some things easier.
Your point is?
> Let's see: C do
Alex, do you have reading problem?
Do you need me to finger-point what was his argument?
First:
> > Java programs than me. And I have to admit my lack of competence, too.
> > Certainly, you can run Freenet, xt or Cocoon with kaffe.
Second:
> > > If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> > >
> I _am_ a Java programmer. Insult me like that again, and I'll give you a
> well-deserved line in my .procmailrc.
I'm just curious, what _kind_ of java programmer you are? You don't need
to test compability among different VMs; you can do without
java.security and work with Kaffe happily. You don'
> This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsoft contract
> referred to has only funded a very small part of Kaffe. (I have had
> contact with Tim Wilkinson and Kaffe since before there was a
> Transvirtual, and in fact was involved in some early of funding of
> Kaffe, when I worked at Cy
And I'm guessing this guy(you, Alex) thought java.security only apply to web
application.
On the contrary, you can lift many of the security measure in writing
web-based applets as the browser VM already restrict a lot of
local/remote access.
I just wrote a small database front end without java.s
> You are being deliberately provocative. Of course one can build a
> serious application without java.security. One can even build a
> secure application without it, though java.security gives you better
> control. A compiler, a word-processor, an editor, or any single-user
> application should
of what relevance is this to the discussion of java on debian?
i think a better question is why has this thread been going on this long?
if everyone can answer the first question with "none" and the second
with "i don't know", then perhaps we can stop this flame war. what do
you guys think?
> I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect".
Thanks.
> "commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, transaction-based".
> And of course one can build commercial-level "in-house" transaction-based
> without java.security - it just makes some things easier.
Your point is?
> Let's see: C d
Alex, do you have reading problem?
Do you need me to finger-point what was his argument?
First:
> > Java programs than me. And I have to admit my lack of competence, too.
> > Certainly, you can run Freenet, xt or Cocoon with kaffe.
Second:
> > > If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> >
> I _am_ a Java programmer. Insult me like that again, and I'll give you a
> well-deserved line in my .procmailrc.
I'm just curious, what _kind_ of java programmer you are? You don't need
to test compability among different VMs; you can do without
java.security and work with Kaffe happily. You don
> This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsoft contract
> referred to has only funded a very small part of Kaffe. (I have had
> contact with Tim Wilkinson and Kaffe since before there was a
> Transvirtual, and in fact was involved in some early of funding of
> Kaffe, when I worked at C
And I'm guessing this guy(you, Alex) thought java.security only apply to web
application.
On the contrary, you can lift many of the security measure in writing
web-based applets as the browser VM already restrict a lot of
local/remote access.
I just wrote a small database front end without java.
> You are being deliberately provocative. Of course one can build a
> serious application without java.security. One can even build a
> secure application without it, though java.security gives you better
> control. A compiler, a word-processor, an editor, or any single-user
> application shoul
hOn 12 Mar 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> True - but Gcj *does* supply a VM in the traditional (java) sense.
> I guess not enough people know this.
Indeed, I am one of them.
> Gcj aims to be a *complete* Java solution.
As I say, I had no idea. I thought gcj was purely a compiler project,
which mea
Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 03:25]:
> I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
> compiler,
The purpose is to be a Java implementation which is *based* on
ahead-of-time-compilation - but it does include a VM.
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because g
hOn 12 Mar 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> True - but Gcj *does* supply a VM in the traditional (java) sense.
> I guess not enough people know this.
Indeed, I am one of them.
> Gcj aims to be a *complete* Java solution.
As I say, I had no idea. I thought gcj was purely a compiler project,
which me
Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 03:25]:
> I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
> compiler,
The purpose is to be a Java implementation which is *based* on
ahead-of-time-compilation - but it does include a VM.
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because
* Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 03:25]:
> I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
> compiler, as opposed to Kaffe's which was to build a VM, having KJC as
> an aside. Did I miss something?
Because gcj can compile directly to native machine code, gcj can compet
On 11 Mar 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> (Note I am not particularly interested in the success of Kaffe,
> given my association with Gcj, which can be viewed as a Kaffe
> competitor.)
I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
compiler, as opposed to Kaffe's which was to b
Alan KF LAU wrote:
> Thanks for your information I didn't release there's microsoft.jar in
> it. :D
>
> I'm not going to hate kaffe because it's being funded by Microsoft, but
> its lack of java.security. Java programmers would find it difficult to
> build a commercial grade java application with
* Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010312 03:25]:
> I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
> compiler, as opposed to Kaffe's which was to build a VM, having KJC as
> an aside. Did I miss something?
Because gcj can compile directly to native machine code, gcj can compe
On 11 Mar 2001, Per Bothner wrote:
> (Note I am not particularly interested in the success of Kaffe,
> given my association with Gcj, which can be viewed as a Kaffe
> competitor.)
I was under the impression that Gcj's main purpose was to build a java
compiler, as opposed to Kaffe's which was to
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a Java programmer I seriously suspect any one could build a
> commercial-level(in-house, transaction-based, etc.) java application
> without java.security.
I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect".
"commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, tra
Alan KF LAU wrote:
> Thanks for your information I didn't release there's microsoft.jar in
> it. :D
>
> I'm not going to hate kaffe because it's being funded by Microsoft, but
> its lack of java.security. Java programmers would find it difficult to
> build a commercial grade java application wit
Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a Java programmer I seriously suspect any one could build a
> commercial-level(in-house, transaction-based, etc.) java application
> without java.security.
I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect".
"commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, tr
> > http://www.kaffe.org/cgi-bin/kaffe/security?user=guest;addsignature=1
>
> I think the trick is, implementing java.security takes manpower. Kaffe
> has only so many developers. They have put their developers into what
> they think matters the most at the moment. If you want to help, I bet
> the
> > http://www.kaffe.org/cgi-bin/kaffe/security?user=guest;addsignature=1
>
> I think the trick is, implementing java.security takes manpower. Kaffe
> has only so many developers. They have put their developers into what
> they think matters the most at the moment. If you want to help, I bet
> th
Ben,
Sorry, I'm feeling rather cranky at the moment. Maybe I shouldn't have
gone through my mail...
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++()>$ UL>$ P--- L++>+
Fwiw, one may observe the following snippets from postings five minutes apart
to debian-java and debian-devel:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 20:29, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Is this guy really even worth replying to? Sheesh... Come back and talk to
> me when you have a fscking clue. Thanks.
On Sun, 4 M
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
>
> > The fact that there are no Free JVMs/compilers at present is a temporary
> > problem. Java is, in effect, non-free for now, but this will change when
> > these projects approach completion. Java i
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Friday 2 March 2001, at 18 h 51,
> Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> > unaware of reality...
>
> I must confess my lack of experience with Java. Certa
Ben,
Sorry, I'm feeling rather cranky at the moment. Maybe I shouldn't have
gone through my mail...
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++()>$ UL>$ P--- L++>
Fwiw, one may observe the following snippets from postings five minutes apart
to debian-java and debian-devel:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 20:29, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Is this guy really even worth replying to? Sheesh... Come back and talk to
> me when you have a fscking clue. Thanks.
On Sun, 4
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
>
> > The fact that there are no Free JVMs/compilers at present is a temporary
> > problem. Java is, in effect, non-free for now, but this will change when
> > these projects approach completion. Java
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Friday 2 March 2001, at 18 h 51,
> Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> > unaware of reality...
>
> I must confess my lack of experience with Java. Cert
> Theory: the problem is only temporary
> Practice: it's been temporary for 5 full years :(
So we're about where C++ was in 1993. Not too bad, but people are
less patient than they were then :-)
> Theory: the problem is only temporary
> Practice: it's been temporary for 5 full years :(
So we're about where C++ was in 1993. Not too bad, but people are
less patient than they were then :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> The fact that there are no Free JVMs/compilers at present is a temporary
> problem. Java is, in effect, non-free for now, but this will change when
> these projects approach completion. Java is not really a moving target as
> far as I can tell, so th
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> The fact that there are no Free JVMs/compilers at present is a temporary
> problem. Java is, in effect, non-free for now, but this will change when
> these projects approach completion. Java is not really a moving target as
> far as I can tell, so t
I think Stephanes criticism of the free JVM landscape is quiet correct, and
there is no clear
way forward to resolve many off them...
However, I'd like to stress that there is a big distinction between a free JVM
and free java software.
Java is a rich environment for free software (eg 1802 java p
On Friday 2 March 2001, at 18 h 51,
Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> unaware of reality...
I must confess my lack of experience with Java. Certainly you run far more
Java programs than me. And I have to ad
I think Stephanes criticism of the free JVM landscape is quiet correct, and there is
no clear
way forward to resolve many off them...
However, I'd like to stress that there is a big distinction between a free JVM and
free java software.
Java is a rich environment for free software (eg 1802 ja
On Friday 2 March 2001, at 18 h 51,
Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> unaware of reality...
I must confess my lack of experience with Java. Certainly you run far more
Java programs than me. And I have to a
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 18:23]:
> > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> > unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> > wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page d
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 18:23]:
> Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page devoted to GNU Java
> software!
I think we may n
>> I just wanted to say (or write) that although I generally disagreed with
>> you, I completelly support all you have said. Java and FS is a sad
>> landscape.
> Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU see
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
>
> > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> > unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> > wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page devoted to GNU Java
> software!
If you were yourself a ja
Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page devoted to GNU Java
software!
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474
I just wanted to say (or write) that although I generally disagreed with
you, I completelly support all you have said. Java and FS is a sad
landscape.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 18:23]:
> > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> > unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> > wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 18:23]:
> Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page devoted to GNU Java
> software!
I think we may
>> I just wanted to say (or write) that although I generally disagreed with
>> you, I completelly support all you have said. Java and FS is a sad
>> landscape.
> Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU se
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
>
> > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> > unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> > wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
> unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
> wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page devoted to GNU Java
> software!
If you were yourself a j
Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully
unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to
wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page devoted to GNU Java
software!
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474
I just wanted to say (or write) that although I generally disagreed with
you, I completelly support all you have said. Java and FS is a sad
landscape.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe!!!
~~~
From: Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-java@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Quitting debian-java
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:55:16 +0100
Seth Arnold wrote:
Netscape is there by virtue of being *the* web browser.
unsubscribe!!!
~~~
>From: Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Quitting debian-java
>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:55:16 +0100
>
>Seth Arnold wrote:
>
>>
>>Netsca
Seth Arnold wrote:
Don't get too happy with non-free. It almost got cut a few months back,
and I don't expect it to live forever. I don't know how I feel about the
issue, but Debian *is* based on the idea of being completely Free.
Yeah, cut everything. It`s time to change distro.
Anyway, there is
* Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 01:58]:
> > non-free is not part of Debian. realplayer comes only as an installer.
>
> For me it`s :). It`s listed in installer. Mirorred on your sites.
> Packaged in .deb.
Don't get too happy with non-free. It almost got cut a few months back,
and I do
Per Bothner wrote:
> Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just for everybody's information. kaffe is in fact developed under a
> > contract to Microsoft, please see
> > http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,20225,00.html
>
> This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsoft
Alexander Hvostov wrote:
Artur,
No package should depend directly on Sun's (or any other) Java
implementation. Rather, they should depend on java-virtual-machine or
java-compiler.
Regards,
Alex.
Yes. But i will rather see java2-vm and maybe java2-compiler etc. I
don`t want broke anything that is a
Seth Arnold wrote:
Netscape is there by virtue of being *the* web browser.
And sun/ibm/blackdown java should be there as *the* Java2 implementation!
I would imagine
its days are numbered. (As konqueror, mozilla, and more improve
drastically every day..)
I also would imagine that some day there wil
Artur,
No package should depend directly on Sun's (or any other) Java
implementation. Rather, they should depend on java-virtual-machine or
java-compiler.
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
Seth Arnold wrote:
* Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 01:10]:
Artur, the problem is very simple. I hope I can explain it simply enoug
Debian is about Free Software. Free as in BSD, GPL, LGPL, Artistic,
XFree86, etc. All these licenses satisfy the requirements of the Debian
What about non-fr
* Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 01:10]:
> > Artur, the problem is very simple. I hope I can explain it simply enoug
> > Debian is about Free Software. Free as in BSD, GPL, LGPL, Artistic,
> > XFree86, etc. All these licenses satisfy the requirements of the Debian
>
> What about non-free
Seth Arnold wrote:
* Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 10:27]:
Yeah, but with this solution there is no way to include other free java2
apzz and libs in distribution.
Artur, the problem is very simple. I hope I can explain it simply enoug
Debian is about Free Software. Free as in BSD, GPL,
Seth Arnold wrote:
>
> Don't get too happy with non-free. It almost got cut a few months back,
> and I don't expect it to live forever. I don't know how I feel about the
> issue, but Debian *is* based on the idea of being completely Free.
Yeah, cut everything. It`s time to change distro.
>
>>
* Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 01:58]:
> > non-free is not part of Debian. realplayer comes only as an installer.
>
> For me it`s :). It`s listed in installer. Mirorred on your sites.
> Packaged in .deb.
Don't get too happy with non-free. It almost got cut a few months back,
and I d
Per Bothner wrote:
> Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just for everybody's information. kaffe is in fact developed under a
> > contract to Microsoft, please see
> > http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,20225,00.html
>
> This quite misleading. As far as I know, the Microsof
Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Artur,
>
> No package should depend directly on Sun's (or any other) Java
> implementation. Rather, they should depend on java-virtual-machine or
> java-compiler.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex.
Yes. But i will rather see java2-vm and maybe java2-compiler etc. I
don`t want
Seth Arnold wrote:
>
> Netscape is there by virtue of being *the* web browser.
And sun/ibm/blackdown java should be there as *the* Java2 implementation!
> I would imagine
> its days are numbered. (As konqueror, mozilla, and more improve
> drastically every day..)
I also would imagine that so
Artur,
No package should depend directly on Sun's (or any other) Java
implementation. Rather, they should depend on java-virtual-machine or
java-compiler.
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 01:10]:
>
>>> Artur, the problem is very simple. I hope I can explain it simply enoug
>>> Debian is about Free Software. Free as in BSD, GPL, LGPL, Artistic,
>>> XFree86, etc. All these licenses satisfy the requirements of the Debia
[Note: This is Cc'd to debian-devel and debian-security because of the
discussion regarding RMS' su diatribe; subscribers to these lists
might find it interesting, scroll down past the Java stuff if you are,
and feel free to ignore this message if you're not. Please don't flame
me. I'm thin-skinned
* Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 01:10]:
> > Artur, the problem is very simple. I hope I can explain it simply enoug
> > Debian is about Free Software. Free as in BSD, GPL, LGPL, Artistic,
> > XFree86, etc. All these licenses satisfy the requirements of the Debian
>
> What about non-fre
Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Artur Radosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 10:27]:
>
>> Yeah, but with this solution there is no way to include other free java2
>> apzz and libs in distribution.
>
>
> Artur, the problem is very simple. I hope I can explain it simply enoug
> Debian is about Free Software
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 22:35]:
> That's why you create classes under packages other than `java' or
> `javax'. The Java API proper is in the `java' and `javax' packages, and
> Sun is simply trying to keep Java consistent across implementations by
> using their IP powers to m
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 21:31]:
> > > is their implementation of Java Not Free, the API itself is also Not
> > > Free and cannot be reproduced without licensing from Sun.
> >
> > I suggest getting some lawyers on the task, then.
>
* Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 21:31]:
> > is their implementation of Java Not Free, the API itself is also Not
> > Free and cannot be reproduced without licensing from Sun.
>
> I suggest getting some lawyers on the task, then.
With what money? :)
> Last time I checked, there wa
(followups set to debian-devel; please take this off of debian-java if
replying)
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:57:11PM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> I hope DMFR behaves differently, then, because I will probably miss
> non-free. I have about a page worth of non-free software installed:
>
> - Bl
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
