Recipient of the attachment: MAILSRV1, First Storage Group\Private Information Store
(MAILSRV1), Eric Kort/Inbox
Subject of the message: Re: That movie
No action was taken on the attachment.
Attachment application.pif was Logged Only for the following reasons:
Scan Engine Failure (0x80
Recipient of the attachment: MAILSRV1, First Storage Group\Private Information Store
(MAILSRV1), Mail Admin/Inbox
Subject of the message: Re: That movie
No action was taken on the attachment.
Attachment application.pif was Logged Only for the following reasons:
Scan Engine Failure (0x8
Hallo Ean,
* Ean Schuessler wrote:
>We must come to terms with the fact that a Debian Java policy cannot be
>built with proprietary VMs in mind.
It is already (debian java policy, chapter 2.1):
|Packages that contain a runtime conforming to the Java 1.1
|specification should provide java1-runtim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
unsubscribe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> Therefore we need alternatives for each combination of virtual packages:
> VM -> Provides: net, nio
> -> provides alternatives for java-nio, java-net and java-nio-net
Wouldn't this mean that if a JVM provides k packages of the form java.*,
then it must provide 2^k different virtual packages? T
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Burton wrote:
>> -> provides alternatives for java-nio, java-net and java-nio-net
>Wouldn't this mean that if a JVM provides k packages of the form java.*,
>then it must provide 2^k different virtual packages? This could easily
>be of the order of thousands of virtual packages to
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 21:35, Jan Schulz wrote:
> Jan, never much bothered about lizensing...
Note that Sun *do* care about licensing, and are willing to approach
anyone who breaches their terms.
Thus anyone doing open-source Java work has to be very careful.
Ross
--
Ross Burton
Hallo Ross,
* Ross Burton wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 21:35, Jan Schulz wrote:
>> Jan, never much bothered about lizensing...
>Note that Sun *do* care about licensing, and are willing to approach
>anyone who breaches their terms.
>Thus anyone doing open-source Java work has to be very careful.
Hallo Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >> I will still ask, that all 'java' alteratives (kaffe, gcj, etc) will
> >> add as much API to their bootclasspath as possible.
> >I can only speak for kaffe, but we are gradually trying to merge i
Hallo Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >but the other, much greater part of the problem is application writers who
> >assume that the whole world uses sun's jdk. Thus they muck around with
> >$JAVA_HOME, try to load sun.* classes, try to
Hallo Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >but the other, much greater part of the problem is application writers who
> >assume that the whole world uses sun's jdk. Thus they muck around with
> >$JAVA_HOME, try to load sun.* classes, try to
Hi Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >thanks for taking the time to write a well thought-out, and pointed
> >response. I wasn't sure whether my reply was a bit vitriolic ;)
>
> :) This discussion is nothing against being 'Proponent' of a
Hallo Jan.
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Ean,
>
> * Ean Schuessler wrote:
> >We must come to terms with the fact that a Debian Java policy cannot be
> >built with proprietary VMs in mind.
>
> It is already (debian java policy, chapter 2.1):
> |Packages that contain a runtime
hi Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Ross,
> Anyway, I'm quite biased, as until now I was only a 'consumer', and
> this and other 'unfree' lizenses never happend to limit what I wanted
> to do.
Are you sure you've read Sun's license? ;)
> I might need a bit debian-legal re
Hallo Dalibor,
Just a short reply. I'm running out of time... :) And BTW: no need to
CC me. I hope I have set the required headers...
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>In any case, you'd end up doing a lot of work, with little practical value.
>Just like many jakarta apps come with tons of differently vers
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> :) This discussion is nothing against being 'Proponent' of a new
>> german newsgroup...
>ouch, i sense frustration ;)
It started by a 'Request for Discussion (RfD)' to split the
de.*.StarOffice group and ended in a 905 messages (groups.google) long
discuss
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>>class if they don't appear on the command line. Well, surprise,
>>>kaffe's java compiler, kjc, does not, and there is no spec saying a
>>>compiler needs to do it.
>> IMO, in this cases its better to go with 'everybody'... This should be
>> a one line change
Just a note:
> People will always complain, as long as the free java implementations
> are not equivalent to sun's on all accounts. Frankly, as long as they
> don't want to put the little extra effort, and work with us to fix the
> issues (for example by implementing and contributing the missing
Hallo Ean,
* Ean Schuessler wrote:
>We must come to terms with the fact that a Debian Java policy cannot be
>built with proprietary VMs in mind.
It is already (debian java policy, chapter 2.1):
|Packages that contain a runtime conforming to the Java 1.1
|specification should provide java1-runtim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
unsubscribe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> Therefore we need alternatives for each combination of virtual packages:
> VM -> Provides: net, nio
> -> provides alternatives for java-nio, java-net and java-nio-net
Wouldn't this mean that if a JVM provides k packages of the form java.*,
then it must provide 2^k different virtual packages? T
Hallo Ben,
* Ben Burton wrote:
>> -> provides alternatives for java-nio, java-net and java-nio-net
>Wouldn't this mean that if a JVM provides k packages of the form java.*,
>then it must provide 2^k different virtual packages? This could easily
>be of the order of thousands of virtual packages to
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 21:35, Jan Schulz wrote:
> Jan, never much bothered about lizensing...
Note that Sun *do* care about licensing, and are willing to approach
anyone who breaches their terms.
Thus anyone doing open-source Java work has to be very careful.
Ross
--
Ross Burton
Hi Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >thanks for taking the time to write a well thought-out, and pointed
> >response. I wasn't sure whether my reply was a bit vitriolic ;)
>
> :) This discussion is nothing against being 'Proponent' of a
Hallo Ross,
* Ross Burton wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 21:35, Jan Schulz wrote:
>> Jan, never much bothered about lizensing...
>Note that Sun *do* care about licensing, and are willing to approach
>anyone who breaches their terms.
>Thus anyone doing open-source Java work has to be very careful.
Hallo Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >but the other, much greater part of the problem is application writers who
> >assume that the whole world uses sun's jdk. Thus they muck around with
> >$JAVA_HOME, try to load sun.* classes, try to
Hallo Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >> I will still ask, that all 'java' alteratives (kaffe, gcj, etc) will
> >> add as much API to their bootclasspath as possible.
> >I can only speak for kaffe, but we are gradually trying to merge i
Hallo Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Dalibor,
>
> * Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >but the other, much greater part of the problem is application writers who
> >assume that the whole world uses sun's jdk. Thus they muck around with
> >$JAVA_HOME, try to load sun.* classes, try to
Hallo Jan.
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Ean,
>
> * Ean Schuessler wrote:
> >We must come to terms with the fact that a Debian Java policy cannot be
> >built with proprietary VMs in mind.
>
> It is already (debian java policy, chapter 2.1):
> |Packages that contain a runtime
hi Jan,
--- Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Ross,
> Anyway, I'm quite biased, as until now I was only a 'consumer', and
> this and other 'unfree' lizenses never happend to limit what I wanted
> to do.
Are you sure you've read Sun's license? ;)
> I might need a bit debian-legal re
Hallo Dalibor,
Just a short reply. I'm running out of time... :) And BTW: no need to
CC me. I hope I have set the required headers...
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>In any case, you'd end up doing a lot of work, with little practical value.
>Just like many jakarta apps come with tons of differently vers
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> :) This discussion is nothing against being 'Proponent' of a new
>> german newsgroup...
>ouch, i sense frustration ;)
It started by a 'Request for Discussion (RfD)' to split the
de.*.StarOffice group and ended in a 905 messages (groups.google) long
discuss
Hallo Dalibor,
* Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>>class if they don't appear on the command line. Well, surprise,
>>>kaffe's java compiler, kjc, does not, and there is no spec saying a
>>>compiler needs to do it.
>> IMO, in this cases its better to go with 'everybody'... This should be
>> a one line change
Just a note:
> People will always complain, as long as the free java implementations
> are not equivalent to sun's on all accounts. Frankly, as long as they
> don't want to put the little extra effort, and work with us to fix the
> issues (for example by implementing and contributing the missing
36 matches
Mail list logo
