Re: comments on proposed java policy

Jan Evert van Grootheest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. why is there a difference between java1 and java2? Isn't java1 >virtually obsolete? "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" As long as there are no free implementations of java2 we can't let java1 slip into obsolescence. > 2. why mus

Re: comments on proposed java policy

Jan Evert van Grootheest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. why is there a difference between java1 and java2? Isn't java1 >virtually obsolete? "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" As long as there are no free implementations of java2 we can't let java1 slip into obsolescence. > 2. why mu

Re: comments on proposed java policy

Jan Evert van Grootheest wrote: 2. why must java-compiler depend on java-runtime I propose to make this a suggestion. For example, gcj isn't a java class. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement - presumably that gcj isn't a Java run-time. While the gcj *command* isn't a Java runtme, gcj

Re: comments on proposed java policy

Jan Evert van Grootheest wrote: > 2. why must java-compiler depend on java-runtime I propose to make > this a suggestion. For example, gcj isn't a java class. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement - presumably that gcj isn't a Java run-time. While the gcj *command* isn't a Java runtm