On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 03:08:35PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> On 2/4/06, Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:36:55PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > > Now that gij 4.1 can run many java2 mainstream applications, such as
> > > Azureus, is debian-java ready to pr
On 2/4/06, Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:36:55PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > Now that gij 4.1 can run many java2 mainstream applications, such as
> > Azureus, is debian-java ready to provide a package in main that
> > provides java2-runtime?
>
> We should
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:36:55PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> Now that gij 4.1 can run many java2 mainstream applications, such as
> Azureus, is debian-java ready to provide a package in main that
> provides java2-runtime?
We should get rid of this numbered javaX-runtime. This doesnt really
hel
Charles Fry frogcircus.org> writes:
>
> Does this mean that bugs should be filed with packages which provide or
> depend on java-runtime (I noticed a few)?
>
> Should bugs be filed with kaffe, which as Peter pointed out does not
> provide any java runtime?
>
> Is there any reason why java1-run
> - java1-runtime stands for Java1 (i.e. up to Java 1.2).
> - java2-runtime stands for Java2 (i.e. Java 1.3 and higher).
>
> - free VMs generally only provide java1-runtime (java-runtime is IMHO
> wrong or a typo).
Does this mean that bugs should be filed with packages which provide or
depend o
On 8/21/05, Eric Lavarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> I didn't see a reply to your email so I'll have a try:
>
> - java1-runtime stands for Java1 (i.e. up to Java 1.2).
> - java2-runtime stands for Java2 (i.e. Java 1.3 and higher).
I don't know for sure what naming convention Deb
Petter Reinholdtsen hungry.com> writes:
>
>
> [Eric Lavarde]
> > Conclusion:
> > - if your package works with free VMs, you should write something
> > like: kaffe | sablevm | java1-runtime.
>
> Is it not enough and recommended to list only one non-virtual package,
> aka 'kaffe | java1-runtime'
[Eric Lavarde]
> Conclusion:
> - if your package works with free VMs, you should write something
> like: kaffe | sablevm | java1-runtime.
Is it not enough and recommended to list only one non-virtual package,
aka 'kaffe | java1-runtime' or 'sablevm | java1-runtime'? I assume
would kaffe and sabl
Hi Charles,
I didn't see a reply to your email so I'll have a try:
- java1-runtime stands for Java1 (i.e. up to Java 1.2).
- java2-runtime stands for Java2 (i.e. Java 1.3 and higher).
- free VMs generally only provide java1-runtime (java-runtime is IMHO
wrong or a typo).
- the Sun/Blackdown
Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fully agree with you! The only useful things in the
> current Java Policy are /usr/share/java for JARs, /usr/lib/jni
> and the naming of library packages. Everything else is based
> on wrong assumtions. :-(
I also agree.
--
.''`.
:
Jerry Haltom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I think we MUST do is aim to have a end user application, that
> runs on Java, work as expected. To this end, I see java2-runtime being
> provided by runtimes that conform to Sun's published standards, and no
> others. However we verify that i
Hi Jerry,
Jerry Haltom wrote:
What I think we MUST do is aim to have a end user application, that runs
on Java, work as expected. To this end, I see java2-runtime being
provided by runtimes that conform to Sun's published standards, and no
others. However we verify that is up in the air. Addition
Only one comment inline.
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 17:35, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> [Not CC'ing the bug since it's not related to it]
>
> Jan Schulz wrote:
>
> > Which version? The content changed quite havily with the discussion :)
>
> The original one. As I've said, I've not yet read the discussion y
Hallo Stefan,
* Stefan Gybas wrote:
>[Not CC'ing the bug since it's not related to it]
Thought so, too, but was too lazy :)
>Jan Schulz wrote:
>>Which version? The content changed quite havily with the discussion :)
>The original one. As I've said, I've not yet read the discussion yet.
Hm, be
On 27 Sep 2002, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Thomas" == Thomas J Zeeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas> The debianised blackdown jdk. It's still at a version 1+
> Thomas> years old and multiple releases have seen the light of
> Thomas> day.
>
> As of now (I just looked) jdk 1.3
On 27 Sep 2002, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Thomas" == Thomas J Zeeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas> The debianised blackdown jdk. It's still at a version 1+
> Thomas> years old and multiple releases have seen the light of
> Thomas> day.
>
> As of now (I just looked) jdk 1.
> "Thomas" == Thomas J Zeeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> The debianised blackdown jdk. It's still at a version 1+
Thomas> years old and multiple releases have seen the light of
Thomas> day.
As of now (I just looked) jdk 1.3.1.02b is available in .deb form for
i386, powerpc
> "Thomas" == Thomas J Zeeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> The debianised blackdown jdk. It's still at a version 1+
Thomas> years old and multiple releases have seen the light of
Thomas> day.
As of now (I just looked) jdk 1.3.1.02b is available in .deb form for
i386, powerp
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> Thomas J. Zeeman wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Tom Badran wrote:
> >
> >>have the sun jdk installed and dont want to install the blackdown one just
> >>to
> >>
> >
> >Someone mentioned he's updating that one to the latest available version.
> >H
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> Thomas J. Zeeman wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Tom Badran wrote:
> >
> >>have the sun jdk installed and dont want to install the blackdown one just to
> >>
> >
> >Someone mentioned he's updating that one to the latest available version.
> >Haven
Thomas J. Zeeman wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Tom Badran wrote:
have the sun jdk installed and dont want to install the blackdown one just to
Someone mentioned he's updating that one to the latest available version.
Haven't seen much activity though. :(
Updating what to the latest version
Thomas J. Zeeman wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Tom Badran wrote:
>
>
>>have the sun jdk installed and dont want to install the blackdown one just to
>>
>>
>
>Someone mentioned he's updating that one to the latest available version.
>Haven't seen much activity though. :(
>
>
>
Updating wha
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Tom Badran wrote:
> Is there a dummy debian package available that provides this or j2re1.3? I
The dummy-package is gone from the archive, but in the latest java-policy
there's a section on creating your own dummy package through the use of
the equivs-package. It can be fou
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Tom Badran wrote:
> Is there a dummy debian package available that provides this or j2re1.3? I
The dummy-package is gone from the archive, but in the latest java-policy
there's a section on creating your own dummy package through the use of
the equivs-package. It can be fo
Tom Badran a écrit:
Is there a dummy debian package available that provides this or j2re1.3? I
have the sun jdk installed and dont want to install the blackdown one just to
get frost to work. I have java-virtual-machine-dummy installed which is
enought to get tomcat4 to work, but no luck with wi
Tom Badran a écrit:
>Is there a dummy debian package available that provides this or j2re1.3? I
>have the sun jdk installed and dont want to install the blackdown one just to
>get frost to work. I have java-virtual-machine-dummy installed which is
>enought to get tomcat4 to work, but no luck w
26 matches
Mail list logo
