Re: Java AWT for Debian?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 2. Juni 2003 18:34 schrieb José Luis Tallón: > > > I tried with gcj-3.2 + libpja-java , to no avail > > > Eclipse packages are currently br0ken in unstable > > > >classpath has some java.awt classes and there is a > > jikes-classpath

Re: Java AWT for Debian?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 23. Juni 2003 06:32 schrieb Adam Heath: > On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Michael Koch wrote: > > classpath CVS and gcj-3.3 have some working parts of awt. gcj-3.4 > > will be the first version with a "working" awt implementa

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

Am Mittwoch, 12. Januar 2005 22:11 schrieb Dalibor Topic: > Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > [Regarding the compatibility of a GPL JVM with Java code under > > other licenses; cross-posted from debian-java to debian-legal] > > [cut noise about FSF] > > > But if the Kaffe copyright holders interpret th

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running on Kaffe

Am Donnerstag, 13. Januar 2005 17:18 schrieb Thomas Fogwill: > Indeed, success! I used the startup script at > http://sablevm.org/wiki/Eclipse Will take a look at it in more > detail tomorrow to see what is needed to get it merged with the > current startup script. The sablevm startup script uses

Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe

Am Samstag, 15. Januar 2005 05:12 schrieb Brian Thomas Sniffen: > Not quite true. It also incorporates the GNU Classpath libraries > which are distributed with / part of Kaffe. There clearly are > bindings provided there. The GNU Classpath package is GPL'd, > right? GNU classpath is GPL+linkin

Re: Bug#537290: classpath-common, gcj-jdk: Conflicting file /usr/share/man/man1/gappletviewer.1.gz

Hello, On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:47:11PM -0400, Matthias Klose wrote: > reassign 537290 classpath-common > thanks > > No, there's nothing wrong with gcj-jdk. It defines a conflict with > the current classpath-common. What needs to be done: update > classpath to 0.98, build cacao using the new c

Re: inofficial package archive and upload queue

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:29:29AM +0200, Torsten Werner wrote: > as a first result from Debconf9 I am announcing the setup of an > inofficial package archive and upload queue. The details can be found > in the Debian wiki at . > I'll move my packages now

Re: inofficial package archive and upload queue

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:10:37PM +0200, Torsten Werner wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Michael Koch wrote: > > And that helps exactly what? The referenced page lists no reasons. > > "for packages that are stuck in NEW" - I could add: and their reverse >

Re: Library packages: co-installability, build-depends, transitions

Hello, sorry for joining the discussion late... On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:42:14PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > In which case, there's no reason to have the symlink, since the jar > itself will have the API version (and not package version). This gives > us another option then: > > Coinstal

Re: javax-servletapi2.3

On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 10:45:27PM +0200, Torsten Werner wrote: > Hi, > > we still have that package in Debian. Do we really need it? The following package Build-Depend on it. libservlet2.3-java Package: bsh Package: jcifs Package: jspwiki Package: libcommons-fileupload-java Package: l

Re: javadoc problem with default-jdk

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 06:26:44PM +0200, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote: > Le Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:52:34 +0200, > Matthias Klose a écrit : > > > On 05.08.2009 17:00, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote: > > > hello as I am working on my remotetea package, I build it using the > > > pbuilder. > > > > > >

Re: javadoc problem with default-jdk

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 06:05:11PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >Always put it into /usr/share/doc//api. > > No, this looks wrong, because you cannot enforce this for packages > where the docs are shipped in the same package. You should use > /usr/share/doc//api, and maybe add a directory > /usr

Re: libjgrapht0.6-java_0.6.0-7_amd64.changes is NEW

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:28:25PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Fri Aug 28 16:44, Steffen Moeller wrote: > > I had felt that when the user apt-get installs libjgrapht-java, he should > > be asked about > > the version he wants to install. Also, I did not want to disturb packages > > that de

Re: libjgrapht0.6-java_0.6.0-7_amd64.changes is NEW

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 12:23:08AM +0200, Steffen Moeller wrote: > Michael Koch wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:28:25PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > >> On Fri Aug 28 16:44, Steffen Moeller wrote: > >>> I had felt that when the user apt-get installs libjgr

Re: Bug#546513: Please drop {Build-,}Depends on sun-java5-*

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:26:12PM +0200, Torsten Werner wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Chris Lamb wrote: > > Package: pj > > Severity: serious > > Version: 0.0~20080628-1 > > no reverse (build) deps, low popcon, outdated upstream version, last > upload > 14 months, nobody cared to mov

Re: Considering removal of kaffe

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:53:22PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi > > After having looked at kaffe I have noticed it seems lacks maintenance > both from the Debian side but also upstream seems rather dead. We got an > 120 days old "FTBFS" RC bug (#529872) and alternatives exists. So I > figured

Re: Considering removal of kaffe

Hello, On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:53:24PM +0200, Torsten Werner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Michael Koch wrote: > > Yes, we need to remove kaffe. I think we dont need bugs against te packages > > maintained by pkg-java. I will work on them and remove (build-)deps

Re: Java packages in main depending on non-free java.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:25:15PM +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > > Niels Thykier writes: > >> I went through the list of our public packages listed here[1] and it > >> turns out that we have 7 packages depending on a non-free version of > >>

Re: Versioned Dependencies (Was: Re: libjgrapht0.6-java_0.6.0-7_amd64.changes is NEWW)

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:59:56PM +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Torsten Werner wrote: > > > >> 2. You cannot binNMU an Architecture: all package but java packages > >> are usually of Architecture: all. > > >

Re: Versioned Dependencies (Was: Re: libjgrapht0.6-java_0.6.0-7_amd64.changes is NEWW)

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 02:43:48PM +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Michael Koch wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:59:56PM +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > >> > On Tue, Sep 15, 20

Bug#365408: Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 20.09.2009 13:43, Niels Thykier wrote: > >Package: java-common > >Version: 0.33 > >Severity: normal > > > >I second this proposal using the java-{jre,jdk} for free and > >java-{jre,jdk}-nonfree > >for nonfree packages. > > No, w

Bug#395372: [policy] relax or expand the "binaries in /usr/bin" restriction (2.3)

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:53:42PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > Package: java-common > Version: 0.33 > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > I second this proposal to include /usr/games in 2.3. Thirded! /usr/games is just another incarantion of /usr/bin and should be explicitely allowed to nt confuse p

Bug#365408: Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 08:10:46AM +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 20.09.2009 13:43, Niels Thykier wrote: > > >Package: java-common > > >Version: 0.33 > > >Severity: normal > > > > &

Re: RFS: java-gnome 4.0.13-3

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:50:23PM +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking for sponsorship for java-gnome 4.0.13-3. This revision > should fix FTBFS on Debian buildd. > > The latest changelog entry for reference. > java-gnome (4.0.13-3) unstable; urgency=low > > * debian/rules >

Re: RFS: jakarta-jmeter 2.3.4-1

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 04:29:45PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > It just means that you should remove the ending . at the end of the > Description: > (try lintian -i for more information). > I fixed the issue in the svn. But please add a changelog entry when changing things. Cheers, Michael

Status of lucene2

Hello, What's the current status of lucene2? In SVN is commited version 2.9.0~rc0+ds1-1. Why was this never uploaded to the archive? In the archive is 2.4.1+ds1-1. The reason I ask is that I want to update JavaCC to 5.0. The problem is that the generated Java-code uses annotations and lucene2 2

Re: RFS: javassist (updated package)

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 05:45:16PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:3.11-1 > of my package "javassist". > > It builds these binary packages: > libjavassist-java - library for editing bytecodes in Java > libjavassist-java-doc - library for editing by

Bug#395372: [policy] relax or expand the "binaries in /usr/bin" restriction (2.3)

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:05:56AM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Mon Sep 21 08:40, Michael Koch wrote: > > > > > > I second this proposal to include /usr/games in 2.3. > > > > Thirded! /usr/games is just another incarantion of /usr/bin and should be >

Bug#548809: java-common: update-java-alternatives lacks a manpage

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:32:30PM +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote: > Package: java-common > Version: 0.30 > Severity: normal > > > update-java-alternatives lacks a manpage, making it not show up in 'man -k' > and generally hard-to-find. mk...@oberon:~$ cat /etc/debian_version 5.0.3 mk...@oberon:~

Bug#548755: [Policy Update] Updating the java-policy to reflect current practices + small changes.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > Package: java-common > Version: 0.33 > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > Hi > > I have made an attempt to bring the java policy up to date and made some > small changes to make it more compatible with the Debian Policy. > > Attac

Re: jmdns -- java implementation of multi-cast DNS (Apple Rendezvous)

Hello, > So what is the next step ? How do I search for a sponsor ? Could > someone please review: svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-java/trunk/jmdns/debian > ? Upload your complete (source) package somewhere and mail me the link to the dsc file personally. Then I can take a look into it. Cheers, Michael

Re: Ivy problems when trying to package mondrian

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:25:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > I consider packaging mondrian [1] which can be downloaded here [2] > because we *might* use it in the future. So this is not an ITP from my > side, I'm just having a look. The build.xml file shipped in the source > contains

Re: Ivy problems when trying to package mondrian

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:20:37PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Michael Koch wrote: > > >org/apache/ivy/ant/antlib.xml is located inside ivy.jar. The problem is that > >its > >not loaded from there. Could be classpath issue. Are you sure you us

Re: Ivy problems when trying to package mondrian

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 02:48:45PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Michael Koch wrote: > > >With CDBS it would be a simple DEB_JARS variable. There are also plenty of > >examples in the archive for packages using ant and cdbs. > > OK. For my tes

Re: Ivy problems when trying to package mondrian

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Michael Koch wrote: > > >Is this JavaCup no packaged as cup in Debian? Or do you mean cup2? > > I mean whatever solves > > ... > define-tasks: > > BUILD FAILED > /home/tille

Re: RFS: java-gnome 4.0.13-3

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:53:43PM +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Michael Koch wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:50:23PM +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I am looking for sponsorship for java-gnome 4.0.13-3.

Re: Sesame2 backend for soprano [working packages]

Hello Christopher, On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:28:59AM +0200, Christopher Bertels wrote: > I was just wondering, if there is any interest at all to include the packages > into Debian? I'm also interested but not much time for review of the packages. If noone else did it I can do it in about two

Re: jlgui sound

Hello, On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:54:04AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > However, I have not re-uploaded jlgui just yet. We ran into a problem > with the audio part. > > When starting jlgui with openjdk it defaulted to use pulseaudio (which > was not even installed) and failed to play any sound.

Re: Lucene 2.9.0: please check openoffice.org, pauker, jspwiki

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:52:21PM +0200, Jan-Pascal van Best wrote: > Dear all, > > I've uploaded a liblucene2-java version 2.9.0 to my private package > repository, debian-mentors and the pkg-java queue at alioth. Could the > maintainers of the package that depend on liblucene2-java > (openoffic

Re: RFS: libxstream-java 1.3.1-5.1

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:43:08AM +0530, Onkar Shinde wrote: > Hi, > > I am looking for sponsorship for package libxstream-java version > 1.3.1-5.1. The packaging bits are updated in pkg-java svn. > > The changelog entry for reference. > libxstream-java (1.3.1-5.1) unstable; urgency=low > > *

Re: Java AWT for Debian?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 2. Juni 2003 18:34 schrieb José Luis Tallón: > > > I tried with gcj-3.2 + libpja-java , to no avail > > > Eclipse packages are currently br0ken in unstable > > > >classpath has some java.awt classes and there is a > > jikes-classpath

Re: tools.jar and free Java code

Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2004 04:07 schrieb Barry Hawkins: > Shyamal Prasad wrote: > | "Arnaud" == Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | >> Perhaps even lib/tools.jar, or is that a Sun thing only? > | > | Arnaud> Yes it is. > | > | So would that mean that any Debian Java packa

Re: tools.jar and free Java code

Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2004 15:23 schrieb Barry Hawkins: > Michael Koch wrote: > | Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2004 04:07 schrieb Barry Hawkins: > |>Shyamal Prasad wrote: > |>| "Arnaud" == Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > |>| >>

Re: tools.jar and free Java code

Am Mittwoch, 17. November 2004 16:53 schrieb Barry Hawkins: > Shyamal Prasad wrote: > [...] > > | So would that mean that any Debian Java package that required > | tools.jar is not usable with a truly free Java at this time? Or > | is there a free tools.jar equivalent? > | > | I am specifically tal

Re: Java Executable

Am Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 22:16 schrieb Matt Young: > I am trying to ficure out how to compile a java source file > directly to a native binary executable for linux. IS this > possible? I have been trying to get GCJ to work but it is > complaining about a missing file. Here is the output: > >

Re: Java Executable

Am Dienstag, 21. Dezember 2004 07:47 schrieb Michael Koch: > Am Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 22:16 schrieb Matt Young: > > I am trying to ficure out how to compile a java source file > > directly to a native binary executable for linux. IS this > > possible? I have been tryi

Re: GtkLookAndFeel

Am Dienstag, 21. Dezember 2004 00:46 schrieb William Ballard: > However /usr/lib/j2se/1.4/jre/lib/rt.jar contains all the > com.sun.java.swing.plaf.gtk.GTKLookAndFeel.* files. > > How can I use GtkLookAndFeel? I really wonder about this. AFAIk GtkLookAndFeel is only supported starting JDK 1.5.

Re: Eclipse 3.0

Am Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2005 00:20 schrieb Jerry Haltom: > Does anybody have anything to work with on this? It seems that it > may have inadvertently become a blocker for Ant in main. :0 > > I've been trying to figure out what's holding Ant back. Looks like > it's some pieces of Swing. So, we need a

Re: Eclipse 3.0

Am Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2005 17:29 schrieb Jerry Haltom: > Does that provide the command line "ant"? Doesn't look like it. No, but its too easy to write it yourself: #!/bin/sh export ANT_HOME=/usr/share/ant1.6 export JAVACMD=kaffe $JAVACMD -classpath $ANT_HOME/lib/ant.jar: $ANT_HOME/lib/ant-laun

Re: Eclipse 3.0

Am Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2005 17:55 schrieb Grzegorz B. Prokopski: > On Wed, 2005-05-01 at 17:40 +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2005 17:29 schrieb Jerry Haltom: > > > Does that provide the command line "ant"? Doesn't look like it. > &g

Re: Eclipse 3.0

Am Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2005 21:55 schrieb Jerry Haltom: > What are the potential issues with using SwingWT for our Swing > implementation in the meantime? If it can be made to work, anyways. SwingWT is just no Swing replacement just similar to it. Its bases on SWT while Swing is based on AWT. The

Re: Eclipse 3.0

Am Donnerstag, 6. Januar 2005 05:36 schrieb Grzegorz B. Prokopski: > On Wed, 2005-05-01 at 18:03 +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 5. Januar 2005 17:55 schrieb Grzegorz B. Prokopski: > > > On Wed, 2005-05-01 at 17:40 +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > > > Am

Re: gcj4 changes : Please Comment

On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 12:28:00PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > Some of you may have noticed that gcj4 is in experimental. Because of > this I would like to start talking about some changes to java-common to > take advantage of the native Java features that gcj4 offers us. > > gcj allows .jar file

Re: gcj4 changes : Please Comment

On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:44:52PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > >Also note the disadvantage: on smaller systems with less memory and/or > >slower cpu this can take a very long time and probably fail due to less > >memory. It should be at least configurable by the admin adn disabled by > >default. >

Re: Re: gcj4 changes : Please Comment

On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:53:08PM +0100, Daniele Cruciani wrote: > > Dan Weber: > > > > If people are interested in native binaries, they'll do it. > > If people are interested in gentoo they'll install gentoo. > > Sorry, most of the time I do not have spare space for compiling natively > pack

Re: Looking for the right Java solution

On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 07:32:24PM +0100, Ivo Marino wrote: > Hello Debian Java folks, > > I need to develop a chess-like game which should be written 100% in > Java, the program should also have a GUI which will show the moves. > > As far as I'm a Debian GNU/Linux `testing` user I would like to

Re: [dsi-list] Re: Looking for the right Java solution

On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 07:45:15PM +0100, Ivo Marino wrote: > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 19:37 +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > > Where have you found this rumor ? > > > From rom the Debian Java FAQ: > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch-debian-java-testi

Re: gcj4 changes : Please Comment

On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:32:41AM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote: > > I hear the arguments for providing natively compiled versions too. This looks > like it's not going to be a clear cut choice. A few thoughts: > > 1) There is a kind of parallel with other languages in Debian. I think of at > le

Eclipse 3 packaging

Hi Joerg, We really need to get the Eclipse packaging group up now. Better sooner then later. You said in earlier thread on this list that you wanted to setup a repository at svn.debian.org. What have to done so far? What other tasks have you don so far for the Eclipse packaging group ? Micha

Re: Eclipse 3 packaging

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 03:30:08AM -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote: > I. Choosing A Packaging Approach > ~Part of what makes Eclipse packaging a challenge is that it is not > one thing. Eclipse as we commonly refer to it in Java contexts consists of: > > The Eclipse Platform > The SWT Libraries >

Re: Eclipse 3 packaging

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:57:03AM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > My goal is to make Eclipse work out of the box perfectly with GCJ 4.0. > Obviously, the end user (you) can switch or choose whatever VM he wants > on his own. I am not going to invest my time with making Eclipse run on > other VMs. Pa

Re: [dsi-list] Re: Looking for the right Java solution

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Ivo Marino wrote: > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 23:31 +0100, Ivo Marino wrote: > > > Well then, I'll try to go my way using the free alternatives. Eventually > > I'll send in some feedback if something should not work as expected. > > > Hello folks, > > Some t

Re: [dsi-po-list] Re: [dsi-list] Re: Looking for the right Java solution

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:01:02PM +0100, Ivo Marino wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 12:20 +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > > classpath-doc will contain the API docs for classpath in the future. > > They are not in there because of a bug in kaffe using too much memory > >

Re: [dsi-po-list] Re: [dsi-list] Re: Looking for the right Java solution

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:21:22PM +0100, Ivo Marino wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 13:12 +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > > If you wanna use online docs please use > > http://developer.classpath.org/doc/ and report anything that can be made > > better back to classpath.

Re: [dsi-po-list] Re: [dsi-list] Re: Looking for the right Java solution

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 01:35:13PM +0100, Ivo Marino wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 13:23 +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > > The submitter can move it to another package via command mail. See > > instructions on http://bugs.debian.org/. > > > I've just sent a "

Re: Bug#288009: batik 1.5.1 would break fop

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:22:19PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared a package for the batik 1.5.1 upstream release. > However during testing the package I realized that batik 1.5.1 > breaks fop ! As far as I see no other packages depend on > libbatik-java. > > fop is currently not

Re: Bug#288009: batik 1.5.1 would break fop

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:28:08PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Michael Koch wrote: > >I would prefer to just add a patch to fop to make it work with batik > >1.5.1 and just depend on batik >= 1.5.1. Putting a second batik copy > >into fop should

Status of Eclipse 3.1M5a packaging

Hi list, I started packaging of Eclipse 3.1M5a for Debian. Its based on Jerry's 3.0.1 packages and uses currently kaffe for building because its in unstable. Unfortunately the build does not get very far as it triggers a bug in kaffes gc or locking code (or both). I will wait til a new version of

Re: Could someone provide a recap of available Eclipse 3.x packages?

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:42:56PM +0100, Christophe Porteneuve wrote: > Hi there, > > I try to follow the list assiduously, but I somehow fail to grasp an accurate > picture of the status of 3.x packaging. > > I'm a Java/J2EE teacher at an IT college, and we mostly use Linux in labs > (Debian

Re: GCJ Native Proposal

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:13:44AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > On Sunday 13 March 2005 22:05, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > > But just for discussion - wouldn't there be a third possibility ? > > (Sorry if this is a stupid question !). > > > > What about a creating a second source package which build-de

Re: GCJ Native Proposal

On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:13:23PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > Attention Java Maintainers: This Effects You > > > This is a recap of an ad-hoc discussion a number of Java maintainers had > a few minutes ago in #debian-java concerning our direction with regards > to including native GCJ compiled

Re: Javadoc policy

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:26:55PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:43:55 -0600, > Jerry Haltom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 00:28 -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote: > >> Jerry Haltom wrote: > >> | I had a bright idea for our Java policy which I want to discu

Re: Javadoc policy

On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:08:56PM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > I had a bright idea for our Java policy which I want to discuss: > installing all javadoc in a centralized location and linking it > together. > > What this would do is let a user pop open a web browser and see javadoc > for every pag

Re: Experimenting with building libxalan2-java with free vm's

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:13:14PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > Hi all, > > libxalan2-java is the main blocker atm for moving several java packages > to main - I therefore started experimenting with compiling it with the > free tools. > > Although I almost had success - there are some problems l

Re: GCJ Native Proposal

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jerry Haltom wrote: > [...] > | The main > | motivation for this is speed. There is no JIT overhead involved and it > | runs native, not interpreted. It is worth noting that the Kaf

Re: GCJ Native Proposal

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:06:45PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > Michael Koch wrote: > [...] > >You are right, its not always a gain. Tom Tromey told me that he is > >aware of one case where the native library is slower then interpreting > >the jar. > >Doing (c) and f

Re: GCJ Native Proposal

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:30:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > On Tuesday 15 March 2005 14:10, Michael Koch wrote: > > > Hmmm, the idea has its merits. Implementationwise, it'd make more sense > > > to have $lib-jbi Build-Depend on $lib-java. The $lib-jbi would have to

libbsf-java

Hi all, Who works on libbsf-java. The MovingToMain page [1] says it has an issue with using the class sun.tools.javac.Main. Can we use the fix from upstream CVS and add it as patch to this package? When this issue is solved libxalan2-java nad libbsf-java can ve uploaded to main. bcel is already

Re: libbsf-java

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:36:17AM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > Michael Koch wrote: > >Hi all, > >Who works on libbsf-java. The MovingToMain page [1] says it has an issue > >with using the class sun.tools.javac.Main. Can we use the fix from > >upstream CVS and add

Re: libbsf-java

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:39:19PM +, Robert Lougher wrote: > Michael Koch gmx.de> writes: > > > > Please don't use jamvm in general. It's only available on i386, powerpc > > and arm. It's not ported yet to other archs and Porting to 64-bit archs &g

Re: libbsf-java

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:47:27PM +, Robert Lougher wrote: > Wolfgang Baer gmx.de> writes: > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > That is just because of the debian policy which states that a package > > must be buildable from source on all debian arches. As jamvm is > > currently not available on all a

Re: [Fwd: Re: libbsf-java]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:40:22PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > > From: Robert Lougher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Wolfgang Baer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:08:49 + > Subject: Re: libbsf-java > > Hi again, > > > The statement of better choice is here maybe a bit out of co

Re: Eclipse 3.0

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:40:26PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > On Wednesday, 16 March 2005 03:48, Thomas Fogwill wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 10:36 +0100, Fred wrote: > > > Are there any eclipse 3.0 packages for debian ? > > > > Yip, Jerry's source packages are on mentors.debian.net > > >

Re: Setup a free java development environment

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:17:53PM +0100, Eric Lavarde wrote: > Would this is be a valid idea to add a page under > http://java.debian.net/index.php/MovingJavaToMain > addressing this topic? This might be moved to a "real" documentation once it > is somehow finalized... > > I could try to do a s

Re: Setup a free java development environment

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:59:43PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: > On Sat, 2005-19-03 at 09:36 -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Eric Lavarde wrote: > > [...] > > | So, is there somewhere a document that explains how to setup a free jav

bcel

Hello all, a good day for our Java effort. the bcel package got accepted into main. This means we can work on some more packages to move them to main. libmx4j-java comes to my mind which should be directly movable to main and is used by many other packages in contrib. I have changed to edit the

Re: bcel

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:21:24AM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Michael Koch wrote: > >Hello all, > >a good day for our Java effort. the bcel package got accepted into main. > >This means we can work on some more packages to move them to main. >

Re: native java libraries

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:37:58AM +0200, Philipp Hug wrote: > Why don't we optionally compile the jars when the package is installed on the > users machine? > This would save a lot of archive space. > it would take longer to install java packages if you have this option > enabled, > but as it i

Re: native java libraries

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:24:26PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote: > "Michael Koch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As discussed earlier this is a huge task with no clear benefit. We > > have to solve some issues before we can even consider doing it: We > &

Re: native java libraries

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:45:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi list. > > > >>When these .so files are present (in the correct location, > >>registered with the correct mechanism) gij will load them automatically > >>and use them in the place of the corresponding .jar file. > > Though I

Re: native java libraries

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:47AM -0600, Jerry Haltom wrote: > There is no good way to make a global cache at runtime other than a SUID > binary, which is not happening. A per user cache is also not practical. Package installation is done as root so no SUID bit would need to be set. And it doenst

Re: test if there is a gain

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote: > would it be done as > > /usr/bin/time fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage > > with a java package for testing the gain of eclipse-ecj ? > > some changes rules or some changes to cdbs for switching java compiler > by setting a var in rule

Re: test if there is a gain

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:49:58PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote: > Il giorno mar, 29-03-2005 alle 18:02 +0200, Michael Koch ha scritto: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote: > > > would it be done as > > > > > > /usr

Re: test if there is a gain

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:35:23PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote: > "Michael Koch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I see no reason to imidiately switch everything to eclipse-ecj and > > gcc-4.0 when it hits debian. We live from freedom of choice and mono >

Re: test if there is a gain

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 12:10:28PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:24:26PM +0200, Michael Koch wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:49:58PM +0200, Daniele Cruciani wrote: > > > Il giorno mar, 29-03-2005 alle 18:02 +0200, Michael Koch ha scritto: >

Re: Status of hsqldb package

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:07:23PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The DebianJavaWiki wonders on the subject of the hsqldb package: > > Non-Main-Depends: j2re1.4 (runtime dependency) > Description: Java SQL database engine > Does not build-dep on any contrib packages - does it need a java2-runtim

Re: Status of hsqldb package

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:57:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Michael Koch wrote: > > Looks like a problem with the incomplete implementation of NIO File > > locking in kaffe. > > This indeed seems to be the problem. But it turns out that hsqldb has a > fall-bac

Re: New VM Selection Method

On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 11:24:37AM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote: > Anybody interested in this at all? Sorry, I was busy this week and I wanted to think about it a bit. > > On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 11:12 -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote: > > We need a standard, nice, easy to extend way for binary wrappers > >

Re: New VM Selection Method

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 08:17:22AM +0200, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > >On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 11:12 -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote: > >>We need a standard, nice, easy to extend way for binary wrappers > >>in /usr/bin and/or startup scripts to locate their VM. There are a few > >>requirements that I had: > >>

Re: New VM Selection Method

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:40:53AM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote: > Actually I had assumed editing the line in /etc/jvm.conf would have been > enough for somebody who didn't want a GUI. Was I wrong? you are right, vi is good enough as command-line tool. Can you provide a patch against java-common tha

  1   2   3   4   5   >