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
[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 yet.
I'll send my comments in a couple of days so we can discuss all this at
FOSDEM.
Even
6 matches
Mail list logo
