Le mardi 27 septembre 2011 à 00:48 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> On 09/26/2011 11:13 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Well, at build time, I understand but how do you do at runtime ? There
> > are programs which need to guess the actual path and which won't depend
> > on our java wrappers...
>
>
On 09/26/2011 11:13 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Well, at build time, I understand but how do you do at runtime ? There
> are programs which need to guess the actual path and which won't depend
> on our java wrappers...
which ones? and how do these guess the VM used?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
Le lundi 26 septembre 2011 à 20:00 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> On 09/26/2011 07:41 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> hmm, on second thought, I think this looks wrong. at build time you always
> >> have
> >> the output of dpkg-architect
On 09/26/2011 07:41 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> hmm, on second thought, I think this looks wrong. at build time you always
>> have
>> the output of dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH available, so you can
>> adjust it. At runtime that
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> hmm, on second thought, I think this looks wrong. at build time you always
> have
> the output of dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH available, so you can
> adjust it. At runtime that should be handled by all our different java
> wrap
On 09/25/2011 10:28 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 09/25/2011 08:54 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> openjdk-6-jre-headless now doesn't use java-6-openjdk anymore. so with
>> the
>> appropriate conflicts, this symlink can be moved to default-jre-headless.
>>
>> I do not think tha
On 09/25/2011 08:54 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> openjdk-6-jre-headless now doesn't use java-6-openjdk anymore. so with the
> appropriate conflicts, this symlink can be moved to default-jre-headless.
>
> I do not think that this is a good solution. IMHO openjdk-6 should
> build a p
Hi,
openjdk-6-jre-headless now doesn't use java-6-openjdk anymore. so with the
appropriate conflicts, this symlink can be moved to default-jre-headless.
I do not think that this is a good solution. IMHO openjdk-6 should
build a package with the generic symlink. As an alternative: would
On 09/21/2011 10:54 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le mercredi 21 septembre 2011 à 21:20 +0200, Damien Raude-Morvan a
> écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le vendredi 02 septembre 2011 03:06:47, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>>> On 09/01/2011 10:46 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Matthi
Le mercredi 21 septembre 2011 à 21:20 +0200, Damien Raude-Morvan a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Le vendredi 02 septembre 2011 03:06:47, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > On 09/01/2011 10:46 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >> why deleting the remainder o
Hi,
Le vendredi 02 septembre 2011 03:06:47, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> On 09/01/2011 10:46 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> why deleting the remainder of the email and not reading the email up to
> >> the end?
> >
> > JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/j
On 09/01/2011 10:46 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
why deleting the remainder of the email and not reading the email up to the
end?
JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk is the answer? I believe
that we will see some FTBFS problems. But m
Le jeudi 01 septembre 2011 à 22:46 +0200, Torsten Werner a écrit :
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > why deleting the remainder of the email and not reading the email up to the
> > end?
>
> JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk is the answer? I believe
> that we wi
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> why deleting the remainder of the email and not reading the email up to the
> end?
JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk is the answer? I believe
that we will see some FTBFS problems. But maybe that it might a good
reason the switch to
On 08/31/2011 11:13 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
Hi Matthias,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
The path /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk isn't valid anymore. It currently only
contains common jar files.
which path should we use now if we want to use openjdk-6 explicitely?
w
Hi Matthias,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The path /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk isn't valid anymore. It currently only
> contains common jar files.
which path should we use now if we want to use openjdk-6 explicitely?
Cheers,
Torsten
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de
16 matches
Mail list logo
