Sorry for the delayed reply, but we all know how life and time come and go.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Package naming:
> ---
>
> * Java programs should be named as any ordinary debian packages.
> * Libraries must (?) have the name
> lib[version]-java (where the
Adam Heath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Bang, Steinar wrote:
[snip!]
>> does anyone know if there are unofficial 3.3 packages
>> for woody somewhere?
> I have debs, but the config has changed around quite a
> bit upstream, so I haven't even gotten to the point of
> test
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:06:54AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Also, it may be beneficial for java-common to register .jar/.war/.ear
> files with /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc, and provide a wrapper script for
> running these. This could keep each binary package from having to have
> its own wrapper scri
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drop the '-' on the link target. Standard libraries do not have anything like
> that.
Don't drop the dash, think about: libmp311.jar That's confusing to
users and programs. Shared libraries do have .so., but anyway there's
no need to copy shlibs religousl
(I am fairly new to this list so please forgive me if I am suggesting
something that has been discussed earlier, just point me to archives)
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 02:22:39PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > Also, it may be beneficial for java-common to register
> > .jar/.war/.ear files with /
(keep me in Cc: since I'm not subscribed)
Greetings fellow developers,
I'm currently (not) maintaining the Debian Java FAQ
(http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq) I just took
a look at it today and noticed there is quite some information
needed mainly:
- information on new Java pack
> > * Libraries must (?) have the name
> > lib[version]-java (where the version part is the necessary
> > part of the version, like libxalan2-java, not libxalan2.0.0-java).
>
> There could be a libxalan2.3-java. It depends the software. In addition,
> this means having libxalan1-java, li
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I did not choose -version, as some jvms already have that. --flavor has a
> > a high probability of not currently being used.
>
> Confusing interaction with UK spelling. --variant?
> --simple-version-string?
That's reason enough to choose another name.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> Have you looked through the JVM registry proposals that I've posted to this
> list? I put up scripts on people.debian.org almost a month ago (with a post
> to this list) and nobody has signalled any problems.
I remember the thread, but skipped it at the ti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically I would appreciate a new maintainer standing up, who reads and
> participates in the debian-java mailing list. If anyone is willing to stand
> out and do the job (some peopl
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drop the '-' on the link target. Standard libraries do not have anything like
> that.
Don't drop the dash, think about: libmp311.jar That's confusing to
users and programs. Shared libraries do have .so., but anyway there's
no need to copy shlibs religous
(I am fairly new to this list so please forgive me if I am suggesting
something that has been discussed earlier, just point me to archives)
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 02:22:39PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > Also, it may be beneficial for java-common to register
> > .jar/.war/.ear files with
(keep me in Cc: since I'm not subscribed)
Greetings fellow developers,
I'm currently (not) maintaining the Debian Java FAQ
(http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq) I just took
a look at it today and noticed there is quite some information
needed mainly:
- information on new Java pac
> > * Libraries must (?) have the name
> > lib[version]-java (where the version part is the necessary
> > part of the version, like libxalan2-java, not libxalan2.0.0-java).
>
> There could be a libxalan2.3-java. It depends the software. In addition,
> this means having libxalan1-java, l
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I did not choose -version, as some jvms already have that. --flavor has a
> > a high probability of not currently being used.
>
> Confusing interaction with UK spelling. --variant?
> --simple-version-string?
That's reason enough to choose another name
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
> Have you looked through the JVM registry proposals that I've posted to this
> list? I put up scripts on people.debian.org almost a month ago (with a post
> to this list) and nobody has signalled any problems.
I remember the thread, but skipped it at the t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically I would appreciate a new maintainer standing up, who reads and
> participates in the debian-java mailing list. If anyone is willing to stand
> out and do the job (some peop
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:06:54AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Also, it may be beneficial for java-common to register .jar/.war/.ear
> files with /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc, and provide a wrapper script for
> running these. This could keep each binary package from having to have
> its own wrapper scr
18 matches
Mail list logo
