> Additionally, I still question the wisdom of the shared JNI directory.
> >From what I understand, there are different versions of JNI and you
> cannot count on the idea that all JNI libraries are simply going to work
> with all VMs.
Further to my last email, I should add that this is not an iss
> Additionally, I still question the wisdom of the shared JNI directory.
> >From what I understand, there are different versions of JNI and you
> cannot count on the idea that all JNI libraries are simply going to work
> with all VMs. It's not clear to me that different versions of JNI can
> even
> Additionally, I still question the wisdom of the shared JNI directory.
> >From what I understand, there are different versions of JNI and you
> cannot count on the idea that all JNI libraries are simply going to work
> with all VMs.
Further to my last email, I should add that this is not an iss
> Additionally, I still question the wisdom of the shared JNI directory.
> >From what I understand, there are different versions of JNI and you
> cannot count on the idea that all JNI libraries are simply going to work
> with all VMs. It's not clear to me that different versions of JNI can
> even
On 15 Aug 2003 14:44:02 -0500
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have built packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well
> enough.
Very good news! :-D
> Sorry again for my absentee behavior.
You're welcome ;)
-- Arnaud Vandyck, STE fi, ULg
Formateur Cellule Programma
Hi Ean,
My apologies. We installed a new mail server and I was in a car wreck
shortly after so some configuration issues went unattended. I have built
packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well enough. I need
to verify that I can stop using pthreads. Under 1.0.7 I could not get
ant to
My apologies. We installed a new mail server and I was in a car wreck
shortly after so some configuration issues went unattended. I have built
packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well enough. I need
to verify that I can stop using pthreads. Under 1.0.7 I could not get
ant to spawn ex
On 15 Aug 2003 14:44:02 -0500
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have built packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well
> enough.
Very good news! :-D
> Sorry again for my absentee behavior.
You're welcome ;)
-- Arnaud Vandyck, STE fi, ULg
Formateur Cellule Programma
Hi Ean,
My apologies. We installed a new mail server and I was in a car wreck
shortly after so some configuration issues went unattended. I have built
packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well enough. I need
to verify that I can stop using pthreads. Under 1.0.7 I could not get
ant to
My apologies. We installed a new mail server and I was in a car wreck
shortly after so some configuration issues went unattended. I have built
packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well enough. I need
to verify that I can stop using pthreads. Under 1.0.7 I could not get
ant to spawn ex
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:34:20 -0700
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes
[...]
> A phone call may be worthwhile.
Is it a joke?! :-|
-- Arnaud
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
> Kaffe has RC bugs which are open for 3 months (not counting your bug
> report about /usr/lib/jni) - all of them either include a patch or are
> easy to fix. Kaffe has been removed from testing because of this and now
> keeps other Java packages (like jikes, see #203054) from moving to testing
> Yes, maybe this is short. On the other hand, one can take into
> consideration that the last message of Ean about upgrading (at that time
> it was to kaffe 1.1.0) was almost two month ago (see #196867). And there
> has been a mail on this list (which I assume he should read) about
> problems
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
A phone call may be worthwhile.
Is it a joke?! :-|
Why should it be a joke? If you want to contact someone
and are having trouble contacting them by email, but
you have a phone number for their place of business, then
a phone is a very practical tool.
--
--Per Both
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:59:06 +0200
Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Gybas wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, your packages don't work - at least on i386. Building
> > libant1.5-java with your Kaffe package fails. The Ant build process
> > calls itself during the build (and thus starts
> Would it not be better to work on getting the free JVMs to the point where
> they can run ant? (or if ant can be adjusted to be more friendly to these
> JVMs)
Sure, but that will take much longer and it's a task at which a random
java package maintainer would be far less effective. As the jyth
Doesn't a few days seem abnormally short notice for such a major NMU -
not a bugfix but an entire new upstream release?
Yes, maybe this is short. On the other hand, one can take into
consideration that the last message of Ean about upgrading (at that time
it was to kaffe 1.1.0) was almost two mo
Stefan Gybas wrote:
Unfortunately, your packages don't work - at least on i386. Building
libant1.5-java with your Kaffe package fails. The Ant build process
calls itself during the build (and thus starts a JVM) but using
JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/kaffe does not compile and classes at all. The JVM
sim
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Salut Arnaud,
Bien le bonjour! ;)
> thanks for making an updated package for kaffe. Did you manage to get in touch
> with Ean?
Yes, I tried but a mailer daemon asked me to confirm (a
spam-fighter
Per Bothner wrote:
Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I got an answer from Ean after a couple of minutes. He said that he
would package Kaffe 1.1 but he did not say when. As I've said, this was
about one month ago and I've not heard from him since then.
Stefan
--
To UNS
> Ant will move to main as soon as a Kaffe 1.1 package is uploaded.
This is wonderful news.
> Upload Kaffe 1.1 and you'll see faster results than rewriting Makefiles. :-)
Indeed. Although since maintainers have happily sat for a year on ant
build systems without writing a few makefiles, I'm su
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:13:57 -0700
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>
> >>A phone call may be worthwhile.
> >
> > Is it a joke?! :-|
>
> Why should it be a joke? If you want to contact someone
> and are having trouble contacting them by email, but
> you have a pho
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 23:48:40 +1000
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, maybe this is short. On the other hand, one can take into
> > consideration that the last message of Ean about upgrading (at that
> > time it was to kaffe 1.1.0) was almost two month ago (see
> > #19
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:04:30PM +0200, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
> >But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
> >license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
> >
> Could you give a link that details this point?
s/point/insanity/
--
- mdz
--
To UNS
time would be better spent persuading the FSF and ASF to get together on their
licenses and make either the GPL ASL compatible or the other way round. who
kknows, maybe you won't waste the time and they get their ideals/egos out of
the way and work out a compromise.
I'm not following this stuff ac
--- Daniel Bonniot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The gij interpreter is quite advanced and for me works better than kaffe
> >in almost all cases where I've done a comparison. There is no reason
> >(in most cases) that an out-of-date kaffe should be a bottleneck for
> >packages progressing into m
Stefan Gybas wrote:
The availability of the new upstream release was reported almost 2
months ago (with a list of bugs that are fixed by this upstream release)
and I've sent Ean another mail about a month ago. How much longer should
we wait?
Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
I've just repack kaffe-1.1.1 (apt-get source kaffe; and uupdate)
Thanks a lot! We really need to have Kaffe 1.1 packages soon.
Unfortunately, your packages don't work - at least on i386. Building
libant1.5-java with your Kaffe package fails. The Ant build process
calls its
And thus with a small amount of work I was able to adjust jython to use
Makefiles and as a result jython was able to ship with woody, even
though ant was not.
This put the decision in a new light. Yes, your goal being to get Jython
in woody, it made sense to work on that. Now that woody is relea
Dalibor Topic wrote:
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe). So it may not be what
debian wants/needs ;)
Since the GCJ VM/runtime is licensed under GPL+exception, this is not
a problem when using gij.
--
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
Could you give a link that details this point?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT
> You can see that I introduced some problems because I'm not familiar
> with the package but as I am on holliday, I'm trying to help Debian the
> more I can;)
Oh, I appreciate your work. I wasn't arguing against your packages - I
was arguing against the proposal to do a new upstream NMU fo
--- Daniel Bonniot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
> >license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
> >
> Could you give a link that details this point?
read the threads:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/20
> Ant will move to main as soon as a Kaffe 1.1 package is uploaded.
This is wonderful news.
> Upload Kaffe 1.1 and you'll see faster results than rewriting Makefiles. :-)
Indeed. Although since maintainers have happily sat for a year on ant
build systems without writing a few makefiles, I'm su
> You can see that I introduced some problems because I'm not familiar
> with the package but as I am on holliday, I'm trying to help Debian the
> more I can;)
Oh, I appreciate your work. I wasn't arguing against your packages - I
was arguing against the proposal to do a new upstream NMU fo
Disclaimer: I haven't been following the kaffe situation at all; I use
gij for my primary DFSG-free JVM.
> I think we should fix and test your Kaffe 1.1.1 packages and do an NMU
> if Ean does not answer within the next few days.
Doesn't a few days seem abnormally short notice for such a major N
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:13:57 -0700
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>
> >>A phone call may be worthwhile.
> >
> > Is it a joke?! :-|
>
> Why should it be a joke? If you want to contact someone
> and are having trouble contacting them by email, but
> you have a pho
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
A phone call may be worthwhile.
Is it a joke?! :-|
Why should it be a joke? If you want to contact someone
and are having trouble contacting them by email, but
you have a phone number for their place of business, then
a phone is a very practical tool.
--
--Per Bothne
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:34:20 -0700
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes
[...]
> A phone call may be worthwhile.
Is it a joke?! :-|
-- Arnaud
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:43:33PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> Incidentally, several java packages could move from contrib into main if
> the maintainers could simply take the time to write their own Makefiles
> instead of relying on the default ant build system which is in contrib,
> e.g., #163168
--- Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand the problem, and the reasons you cite are reasons for
> wanting to NMU in the first place, not for doing a highly irregular new
> upstream NMU right now. For such a significant change I'd allow Ean
> ample time to respond (and perhaps this
Daniel Bonniot wrote:
ant seems very close to getting into main (since kaffe 1.1 is known to
it), what about we focus on getting kaffe 1.1 and ant, and consequently
loads of other Java packages, into main for sarge?
Hey, in case you didn't notice: I've been focussing on this for the last
couple o
Per Bothner wrote:
Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I got an answer from Ean after a couple of minutes. He said that he
would package Kaffe 1.1 but he did not say when. As I've said, this was
about one month ago and I've not heard from him since then.
Stefan
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:59:06 +0200
Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Gybas wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, your packages don't work - at least on i386. Building
> > libant1.5-java with your Kaffe package fails. The Ant build process
> > calls itself during the build (and thus starts
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Salut Arnaud,
Bien le bonjour! ;)
> thanks for making an updated package for kaffe. Did you manage to get in touch
> with Ean?
Yes, I tried but a mailer daemon asked me to confirm (a
spam-fighter
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 23:48:40 +1000
Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, maybe this is short. On the other hand, one can take into
> > consideration that the last message of Ean about upgrading (at that
> > time it was to kaffe 1.1.0) was almost two month ago (see
> > #19
--- Daniel Bonniot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
> >license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
> >
> Could you give a link that details this point?
read the threads:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/20
Stefan Gybas wrote:
The availability of the new upstream release was reported almost 2
months ago (with a list of bugs that are fixed by this upstream release)
and I've sent Ean another mail about a month ago. How much longer should
we wait?
Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe). So it may not be what
debian wants/needs ;)
Since the GCJ VM/runtime is licensed under GPL+exception, this is not
a problem when using gij.
--
Stefan Gybas wrote:
Unfortunately, your packages don't work - at least on i386. Building
libant1.5-java with your Kaffe package fails. The Ant build process
calls itself during the build (and thus starts a JVM) but using
JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/kaffe does not compile and classes at all. The JVM
simp
Daniel Bonniot wrote:
ant seems very close to getting into main (since kaffe 1.1 is known to
it), what about we focus on getting kaffe 1.1 and ant, and consequently
loads of other Java packages, into main for sarge?
Hey, in case you didn't notice: I've been focussing on this for the last
couple of
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:04:30PM +0200, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
> >But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
> >license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
> >
> Could you give a link that details this point?
s/point/insanity/
--
- mdz
And thus with a small amount of work I was able to adjust jython to use
Makefiles and as a result jython was able to ship with woody, even
though ant was not.
This put the decision in a new light. Yes, your goal being to get Jython
in woody, it made sense to work on that. Now that woody is relea
time would be better spent persuading the FSF and ASF to get together on their
licenses and make either the GPL ASL compatible or the other way round. who
kknows, maybe you won't waste the time and they get their ideals/egos out of
the way and work out a compromise.
I'm not following this stuff ac
Ben Burton wrote:
(ii) Dive into the source code for ant itself (which I'm completely
unfamiliar with), rewrite portions of this source code to eliminate the
need for packages outside main, submit patches and then wait for the
ant maintainer to verify and apply them.
No need for patches, the core A
> Would it not be better to work on getting the free JVMs to the point where
> they can run ant? (or if ant can be adjusted to be more friendly to these
> JVMs)
Sure, but that will take much longer and it's a task at which a random
java package maintainer would be far less effective. As the jyth
--- Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand the problem, and the reasons you cite are reasons for
> wanting to NMU in the first place, not for doing a highly irregular new
> upstream NMU right now. For such a significant change I'd allow Ean
> ample time to respond (and perhaps this
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
Could you give a link that details this point?
Daniel
> Kaffe has RC bugs which are open for 3 months (not counting your bug
> report about /usr/lib/jni) - all of them either include a patch or are
> easy to fix. Kaffe has been removed from testing because of this and now
> keeps other Java packages (like jikes, see #203054) from moving to testing
--- Daniel Bonniot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The gij interpreter is quite advanced and for me works better than kaffe
> >in almost all cases where I've done a comparison. There is no reason
> >(in most cases) that an out-of-date kaffe should be a bottleneck for
> >packages progressing into m
> Yes, maybe this is short. On the other hand, one can take into
> consideration that the last message of Ean about upgrading (at that time
> it was to kaffe 1.1.0) was almost two month ago (see #196867). And there
> has been a mail on this list (which I assume he should read) about
> problems
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:43:33PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> Incidentally, several java packages could move from contrib into main if
> the maintainers could simply take the time to write their own Makefiles
> instead of relying on the default ant build system which is in contrib,
> e.g., #163168
Ben Burton wrote:
Doesn't a few days seem abnormally short notice for such a major NMU -
not a bugfix but an entire new upstream release?
Kaffe has RC bugs which are open for 3 months (not counting your bug
report about /usr/lib/jni) - all of them either include a patch or are
easy to fix. Kaffe
Doesn't a few days seem abnormally short notice for such a major NMU -
not a bugfix but an entire new upstream release?
Yes, maybe this is short. On the other hand, one can take into
consideration that the last message of Ean about upgrading (at that time
it was to kaffe 1.1.0) was almost two mo
Disclaimer: I haven't been following the kaffe situation at all; I use
gij for my primary DFSG-free JVM.
> I think we should fix and test your Kaffe 1.1.1 packages and do an NMU
> if Ean does not answer within the next few days.
Doesn't a few days seem abnormally short notice for such a major N
Ben Burton wrote:
(ii) Dive into the source code for ant itself (which I'm completely
unfamiliar with), rewrite portions of this source code to eliminate the
need for packages outside main, submit patches and then wait for the
ant maintainer to verify and apply them.
No need for patches, the core
Ben Burton wrote:
Doesn't a few days seem abnormally short notice for such a major NMU -
not a bugfix but an entire new upstream release?
Kaffe has RC bugs which are open for 3 months (not counting your bug
report about /usr/lib/jni) - all of them either include a patch or are
easy to fix. Kaffe
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
I've just repack kaffe-1.1.1 (apt-get source kaffe; and uupdate)
Thanks a lot! We really need to have Kaffe 1.1 packages soon.
Unfortunately, your packages don't work - at least on i386. Building
libant1.5-java with your Kaffe package fails. The Ant build process
calls itsel
Salut Arnaud,
thanks for making an updated package for kaffe. Did you manage to get in touch
with Ean?
--- Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thenewupstreamreleasecloses #196867(Kaffe1.1.0
> available). According to Dalibor Topic (in the same bug report), the n
Salut Arnaud,
thanks for making an updated package for kaffe. Did you manage to get in touch
with Ean?
--- Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thenewupstreamreleasecloses #196867(Kaffe1.1.0
> available). According to Dalibor Topic (in the same bug report), the n
70 matches
Mail list logo
