[ Responding to old mail. The issue was whether Java packages
should depend on both java-virtual-machine and java1/2-runtime. ]
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:18:29PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > If all jvm packages out there specified whether they were java1-runtime
> > or java2-runtime c
[ Responding to old mail. The issue was whether Java packages
should depend on both java-virtual-machine and java1/2-runtime. ]
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:18:29PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > If all jvm packages out there specified whether they were java1-runtime
> > or java2-runtime
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 04:27:10PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> I'm just wondering if such fine grain control is necessary ?
Yes I think so.
> If all jvm packages out there specified whether they were java1-runtime
> or java2-runtime compliant (or both), then all java packages
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:27:12PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> >
> > Great work, and thanks for updating the policy. :-)
> >
> > Just one question though - I'm curious why programs have to depend on
> > both java-virtual-machine *and* jav
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 04:27:10PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> I'm just wondering if such fine grain control is necessary ?
Yes I think so.
> If all jvm packages out there specified whether they were java1-runtime
> or java2-runtime compliant (or both), then all java package
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:27:12PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> >
> > Great work, and thanks for updating the policy. :-)
> >
> > Just one question though - I'm curious why programs have to depend on
> > both java-virtual-machine *and* ja
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:27:12PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> Hi Ola,
>
> Great work, and thanks for updating the policy. :-)
>
> Just one question though - I'm curious why programs have to depend on
> both java-virtual-machine *and* java1/2-runtime now ? Why is this so ?
W
Hi Ola,
Great work, and thanks for updating the policy. :-)
Just one question though - I'm curious why programs have to depend on
both java-virtual-machine *and* java1/2-runtime now ? Why is this so ?
I would have thought depending on java1/2-runtime would implici
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:27:12PM +0200, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> Hi Ola,
>
> Great work, and thanks for updating the policy. :-)
>
> Just one question though - I'm curious why programs have to depend on
> both java-virtual-machine *and* java1/2-runtime now ? Why is this so ?
Hi Ola,
Great work, and thanks for updating the policy. :-)
Just one question though - I'm curious why programs have to depend on
both java-virtual-machine *and* java1/2-runtime now ? Why is this so ?
I would have thought depending on java1/2-runtime would implic
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> mailinglist.
>
> Because the previous policy was on bortz accound I have to
> move it to a new location
> http://p
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> mailinglist.
>
> Because the previous policy was on bortz accound I have to
> move it to a new location
> http://
From: "Ben Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Takashi Okamoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:34 AM
Subject: Re: The proposed java policy have now moved.
> It seems the decision not to provide java-virtual-machine was deliberate;
>
From: "Ben Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Takashi Okamoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:34 AM
Subject: Re: The proposed java policy have now moved.
> It seems the decision not to provide java-v
> kissme is also free JVM in main. It is developed by John Leune who is
> Debian Developer;)
It seems the decision not to provide java-virtual-machine was deliberate;
see http://bugs.debian.org/114329 for details.
Nevertheless I'm happy including it in the list for debian policy, since
if a Java
> kissme is also free JVM in main. It is developed by John Leune who is
> Debian Developer;)
It seems the decision not to provide java-virtual-machine was deliberate;
see http://bugs.debian.org/114329 for details.
Nevertheless I'm happy including it in the list for debian policy, since
if a Jav
> kissme is also free JVM in main. It is developed by John Leune who is
> Debian Developer;)
I missed that one because it doesn't provide java-virtual-machine. I just
filed a bug asking about this, but if not providing java-virtual-machine
is a deliberate decision (eg. because kissme doesn't see
At Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:36:58 +0200,
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> mailinglist.
It sounds good!!
At Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:40:11 -0500 (CDT),
Ben Burton wrote:
> "Main, contrib or non-free":
> kissme is also free JVM in main. It is developed by John Leune who is
> Debian Developer;)
I missed that one because it doesn't provide java-virtual-machine. I just
filed a bug asking about this, but if not providing java-virtual-machine
is a deliberate decision (eg. because kissme doesn't se
At Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:36:58 +0200,
Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> mailinglist.
It sounds good!!
At Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:40:11 -0500 (CDT),
Ben Burton wrote:
> "Main, contrib or non-free":
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:40:11AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> > change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> > mailinglist.
>
> Wondeful! Looks great.
Thanks.
> Some comments.
>
> "Main, contrib or non-free":
>
>
> As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> mailinglist.
Wondeful! Looks great.
Some comments.
"Main, contrib or non-free":
- orp is another free JVM in main; this should be added to the list.
- guavac does not e
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:40:11AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> > change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> > mailinglist.
>
> Wondeful! Looks great.
Thanks.
> Some comments.
>
> "Main, contrib or non-free":
>
>
Package: www.debian.org
Hi
As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
mailinglist.
Because the previous policy was on bortz accound I have to
move it to a new location
http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html
So the
> As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
> change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
> mailinglist.
Wondeful! Looks great.
Some comments.
"Main, contrib or non-free":
- orp is another free JVM in main; this should be added to the list.
- guavac does not
Package: www.debian.org
Hi
As the new maintainer I have now finally had the time to
change the policy acording to the discussions on the java
mailinglist.
Because the previous policy was on bortz accound I have to
move it to a new location
http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html
So the
26 matches
Mail list logo
