On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 11:17 AM Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
> Le 04.10.2020 23:02, Sudip Mukherjee a écrit :
> >
> > I have modified d/rules and added the version in 'dh_gencontrol' and
> > you can see it in sudip/jni branch. It now builds
> > libequinox-executable-jni_3.8.900+eclipse4.17-2_amd64.deb
Le 04.10.2020 23:02, Sudip Mukherjee a écrit :
I have modified d/rules and added the version in 'dh_gencontrol' and
you can see it in sudip/jni branch. It now builds
libequinox-executable-jni_3.8.900+eclipse4.17-2_amd64.deb package. Not
sure if there is some simple way to extract the version fro
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 3:03 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
> Le 02.10.2020 18:14, Sudip Mukherjee a écrit :
>
> > Thanks. I did it in a fairly simple (hacky) way and have pushed to
> > 'sudip/jni' branch for you to have a look first.
> > It is now building 'libequinox-executable-jni_4.17-2_amd64.deb'
Le 02.10.2020 18:14, Sudip Mukherjee a écrit :
Thanks. I did it in a fairly simple (hacky) way and have pushed to
'sudip/jni' branch for you to have a look first.
It is now building 'libequinox-executable-jni_4.17-2_amd64.deb' and
'libequinox-executable-jni-dbgsym_4.17-2_amd64.deb' for this chan
Hi Emmanuel,
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 11:42 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
> Le 29.09.2020 18:10, Sudip Mukherjee a écrit :
>
> > The launcher library code is part of "equinox-framework" and lives at
> > 'features/org.eclipse.equinox.executable.feature/library/gtk' but its
> > not built and packaged. I
Le 29.09.2020 18:10, Sudip Mukherjee a écrit :
The launcher library code is part of "equinox-framework" and lives at
'features/org.eclipse.equinox.executable.feature/library/gtk' but its
not built and packaged. I get the splash screen working when I build
it and use it as a launcher library. Jus
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:10 PM Sudip Mukherjee
wrote:
>
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> Is there any problem if I add it as a
> package name "libequinox-launcher-jni" ?
Sorry, it should be libequinox-executable-jni.
--
Regards
Sudip
JNI is part of the platform and is supposed to be part of a
Java-Compatible JDK. There's nothing extra to install.
In case you need it, the reference documentation is here:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/jni/index.html
- David Herron
Nilani Ganeshwaran wrote:
Hi
From: Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: JNI Again
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:24:26 +1100
> The /usr/lib/jni proposal is now implemented in sid for gij and sablevm,
> patches are still available for other JVMs, a policy patch has been provided
> and this has received two seconds and no disput
From: Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: JNI Again
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:24:26 +1100
> The /usr/lib/jni proposal is now implemented in sid for gij and sablevm,
> patches are still available for other JVMs, a policy patch has been provided
> and this has received two seconds and no disput
Hello
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 06:26:52PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ola> Well. Do they have any reason for this?
>
> Concerns about the redistribution of code that Debian has been
> distributing for longer than the five years I've
Hello
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 06:26:52PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ola> Well. Do they have any reason for this?
>
> Concerns about the redistribution of code that Debian has been
> distributing for longer than the five years I've
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> Well. Do they have any reason for this?
Concerns about the redistribution of code that Debian has been
distributing for longer than the five years I've been a DD.
Actually, having to think about this again has helped me make up my
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> Well. Do they have any reason for this?
Concerns about the redistribution of code that Debian has been
distributing for longer than the five years I've been a DD.
Actually, having to think about this again has helped me make up my
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:59:25AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ola> You actually say that they allow jdk1.1 to be in the archives
> Ola> but not updates to it?
>
> Yep. Impressive, huh!
Well. Do they have any reason for this?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:59:25AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ola> You actually say that they allow jdk1.1 to be in the archives
> Ola> but not updates to it?
>
> Yep. Impressive, huh!
Well. Do they have any reason for this?
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> You actually say that they allow jdk1.1 to be in the archives
Ola> but not updates to it?
Yep. Impressive, huh!
--
Stephen
"A duck!"
> "Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ola> You actually say that they allow jdk1.1 to be in the archives
Ola> but not updates to it?
Yep. Impressive, huh!
--
Stephen
"A duck!"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 12:59, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I second this proposal.
I also second this proposal.
At some point I really should upload my libjpcsc-java packages...
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jabber: [E
Hi
I second this proposal.
To be accepted this proposal needs at least two seconds and no
objections.
Regards,
// Ola
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 11:36:06PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Hi. As requested, a source patch for java-common is included below. It's
> also available at http://people.d
On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 12:59, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I second this proposal.
I also second this proposal.
At some point I really should upload my libjpcsc-java packages...
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jabber: [E
Hi
I second this proposal.
To be accepted this proposal needs at least two seconds and no
objections.
Regards,
// Ola
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 11:36:06PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Hi. As requested, a source patch for java-common is included below. It's
> also available at http://people.d
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:04:19PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben> The jdk1.1 and j2se1.4 maintainer I've heard nothing from at
> Ben> all.
>
> I got your message and will be including the change in the next j2se
> packages. I wo
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:04:19PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben> The jdk1.1 and j2se1.4 maintainer I've heard nothing from at
> Ben> all.
>
> I got your message and will be including the change in the next j2se
> packages. I wo
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> The jdk1.1 and j2se1.4 maintainer I've heard nothing from at
Ben> all.
I got your message and will be including the change in the next j2se
packages. I won't beincluding it in the jdk1.1 package because the
ftp-nasters have alread
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The jdk1.1 and j2se1.4 maintainer I've heard nothing
Ben> from at all.
--
Stephen
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety -- Benjamin Franklin
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> The jdk1.1 and j2se1.4 maintainer I've heard nothing from at
Ben> all.
I got your message and will be including the change in the next j2se
packages. I won't beincluding it in the jdk1.1 package because the
ftp-nasters have alread
> "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The jdk1.1 and j2se1.4 maintainer I've heard nothing
Ben> from at all.
--
Stephen
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety -- Benjamin Franklin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
> Do you know why they have not done anything. Have they responded at all?
The kaffe maintainer wrote when I sent the second (source-level) patch and
said he'd take a look. The sablevm maintainer replied to my post from
yesterday; you've seen that. The jdk1.1 and j2se1.4 maintainer I've heard
n
> Do you know why they have not done anything. Have they responded at all?
The kaffe maintainer wrote when I sent the second (source-level) patch and
said he'd take a look. The sablevm maintainer replied to my post from
yesterday; you've seen that. The jdk1.1 and j2se1.4 maintainer I've heard
n
W liście z pią, 07-02-2003, godz. 10:11, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:53:12PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> > In the intervening three months, absolutely nothing has been done for *any*
> > of
> Do you know why they have not done anything. Have they responded at all?
Your chang
Hi
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:53:12PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hi, it's me yet again on this JNI issue.
>
> > My suggestion is that you start filing wishlist bugs against the jvm:s
> > and talk to blackdown folk (hi there! ;) ) or similar.
W liście z pią, 07-02-2003, godz. 10:11, Ola Lundqvist pisze:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:53:12PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> > In the intervening three months, absolutely nothing has been done for *any* of
> Do you know why they have not done anything. Have they responded at all?
Your change wil
Hi
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:53:12PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hi, it's me yet again on this JNI issue.
>
> > My suggestion is that you start filing wishlist bugs against the jvm:s
> > and talk to blackdown folk (hi there! ;) ) or similar.
From: Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: JNI Installation Directories (again)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:41:59 +1100
> Note that some (prominent) recent non-debian JVMs don't even include
> /usr/lib in the default search path (see #160765), so /usr/lib is
> no longer an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Python case, there is one implementation and it's use /usr/lib/pyhon
> default. So, it's not problem. But in Java case, there are a lot of
> non-opensource implementation and they don't use /usr/lib/jni
> default. So, users must set library path man
From: Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: JNI Installation Directories (again)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:41:59 +1100
> Note that some (prominent) recent non-debian JVMs don't even include
> /usr/lib in the default search path (see #160765), so /usr/lib is
> no longer an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Python case, there is one implementation and it's use /usr/lib/pyhon
> default. So, it's not problem. But in Java case, there are a lot of
> non-opensource implementation and they don't use /usr/lib/jni
> default. So, users must set library path man
From: Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: JNI Installation Directories (again)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:03:28 +1100
> My argument for /usr/lib/jni is that other programs aren't going to want to
> link with them, so it's better not to clutter up the default s
From: Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: JNI Installation Directories (again)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:03:28 +1100
> My argument for /usr/lib/jni is that other programs aren't going to want to
> link with them, so it's better not to clutter up the default s
> Personally, I feel they're 'just libraries' and should be treated as
> such, going into /usr/lib.
My argument for /usr/lib/jni is that other programs aren't going to want to
link with them, so it's better not to clutter up the default shared library
paths.
It's the same reason C python modul
> Personally, I feel they're 'just libraries' and should be treated as
> such, going into /usr/lib.
My argument for /usr/lib/jni is that other programs aren't going to want to
link with them, so it's better not to clutter up the default shared library
paths.
It's the same reason C python modul
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 02:27, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want people to second this wishlist so I can add it.
I second the idea of standardizing *where* JNI libraries go and
providing support (eg. wrappers) so JVM owners can add that location to
paths. Where exactly JNI libraries should go i
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 02:27, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want people to second this wishlist so I can add it.
I second the idea of standardizing *where* JNI libraries go and
providing support (eg. wrappers) so JVM owners can add that location to
paths. Where exactly JNI libraries should go i
I second this, as I intend to package some JNI packages soon.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.burton
> I want people to second this wishlist so I can add it.
*sigh*.. does nobody but me care about JNI?
Ben.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All art is quite useless
- Oscar Wilde
I second this, as I intend to package some JNI packages soon.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Ross
--
Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.burton
> I want people to second this wishlist so I can add it.
*sigh*.. does nobody but me care about JNI?
Ben.
--
Ben Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All art is quite useless
- Oscar Wilde
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi
I want people to second this wishlist so I can add it.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=163390&repeatmerged=yes
Regards,
// Ola
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 10:45:59AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hi. Regarding my proposal on
Hi
I want people to second this wishlist so I can add it.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=163390&repeatmerged=yes
Regards,
// Ola
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 10:45:59AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hi. Regarding my proposal on
Ben Burton wrote:
IIRC the issue of automatically including every jar in /usr/share/java has
already been hashed out on this list and decided to be a bad idea (too much
overhead, poor control over conflicts, etc), thought I could be wrong.
I did on September 2 make the following suggestion:
Jav
Ben Burton wrote:
>IIRC the issue of automatically including every jar in /usr/share/java has
>already been hashed out on this list and decided to be a bad idea (too much
>overhead, poor control over conflicts, etc), thought I could be wrong.
>
I did on September 2 make the following suggestio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> If libraries should be found automatically, JAR files probably should
> be found autmatically too. J2SE has "extension directories", all
> classes from JAR files in these directories are available without
> adding the JAR files to the CLASSPATH exp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> If libraries should be found automatically, JAR files probably should
> be found autmatically too. J2SE has "extension directories", all
> classes from JAR files in these directories are available without
> adding the JAR files to the CLASSPATH ex
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I realise (2) is a tall order for JVM maintainers, but I believe it
> will make things somewhat more sane in the long run for apps or
> libraries that use JNI classes. Consider writing a Java program
> that uses library X which uses library Y which has JNI
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I realise (2) is a tall order for JVM maintainers, but I believe it
> will make things somewhat more sane in the long run for apps or
> libraries that use JNI classes. Consider writing a Java program
> that uses library X which uses library Y which has JN
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 11:55:03PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > are the JNI APIs available in debian?
>
> Do you mean the header files?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> dlocate jni.h
> kaffe: /usr/include/kaffe/jni.h
> libgcj2-dev: /usr/include/jni.h
> j2sdk1.3: /usr/lib/j2sdk1.3/include/jni.h
>
> Th
> are the JNI APIs available in debian?
Do you mean the header files?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> dlocate jni.h
kaffe: /usr/include/kaffe/jni.h
libgcj2-dev: /usr/include/jni.h
j2sdk1.3: /usr/lib/j2sdk1.3/include/jni.h
The third package (j2sdk1.3) is from blackdown, but kaffe and libgcj2-dev are
both
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 11:55:03PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > are the JNI APIs available in debian?
>
> Do you mean the header files?
>
> bab@espresso:~> dlocate jni.h
> kaffe: /usr/include/kaffe/jni.h
> libgcj2-dev: /usr/include/jni.h
> j2sdk1.3: /usr/lib/j2sdk1.3/include/jni.h
>
> The th
> are the JNI APIs available in debian?
Do you mean the header files?
bab@espresso:~> dlocate jni.h
kaffe: /usr/include/kaffe/jni.h
libgcj2-dev: /usr/include/jni.h
j2sdk1.3: /usr/lib/j2sdk1.3/include/jni.h
The third package (j2sdk1.3) is from blackdown, but kaffe and libgcj2-dev are
both in d
60 matches
Mail list logo
