Re: Too much is too much: One month in Incoming

On Tuesday 27 July 1999, at 8 h 32, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is another way to handle this. You should set up a web based > ..deb repository, [...] This will allow you to experiment more easily. Well, at the present time, anyone could retrieve the p

Kaffe and its bugs (Was: Various issues: kaffe, compilers, freeness, etc.

On Tuesday 27 July 1999, at 8 h 43, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Firstly, I'd like to address the notion that you can't do anything > useful without commercial Java on your system. This seems patently > false. At least in slink, it is impossible. In potato,

Java policy and its lacks (Was: Various issues: kaffe, compilers, freeness, etc.

On Tuesday 27 July 1999, at 8 h 43, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > like. I would tend to repeat the comments that others have stated > regarding its weaknesses. Caution: we are running straight into the problem that already killed the previous proposals. "It i

Sun's Community Licence (Was: Various issues: kaffe, compilers, freeness, etc.

On Tuesday 27 July 1999, at 8 h 43, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > continue our efforts in the face of the SCSL. I have read the SCSL > quite carefully and I can tell you that it is utterly incompatible > with any notion of free software. OK. > - A total ban

Re: autoconf for Java?

On Tuesday 27 July 1999, at 13 h 4, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm looking for a set of autoconf macros to create configure scripts for them They don't seem to exist, so here is my version: divert(-1) autoconf M4 macros for Java

Fwd: java-common_0.1_i386.changes INSTALLED

te: 28 Jul 1999 18:54:29 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: java-common_0.1_i386.changes INSTALLED Installing: java-common_0.1.tar.gz to dists/potato/main/source/misc/java-comm

Fwd: java-compiler-dummy_0.1_i386.changes INSTALLED

Date: 28 Jul 1999 18:54:31 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: java-compiler-dummy_0.1_i386.changes INSTALLED Installing: java-compiler-dummy_0.1.dsc to dists/potato/main/source/

Fwd: java-virtual-machine-dummy_0.1_i386.changes INSTALLED

. --- Forwarded Message Date: 28 Jul 1999 18:54:32 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: java-virtual-machine-dummy_0.1_i386.changes INSTALLED Installing: java-virtual-machine-dummy_0.1_

The list is now archived (Was: Which packages to use?

On Sunday 25 July 1999, at 11 h 57, the keyboard of Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, does anyone know why this list isn't archived at the debian web site? Bug #40347 is now closed. The list started to be archived yesterday

Re: mod_jserv and the Java policy

On Wednesday 4 August 1999, at 19 h 56, the keyboard of Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe we should add a section about where to put servlets, May be. But remember that a Policy which do not cover everything is better than no Policy. > > It should at least depends on java-common

Re: .java files into /usr/share/java/repository

On Wednesday 11 August 1999, at 13 h 51, the keyboard of David Rocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should each Java module distribute the .java files as well the .class Do note there is no formal and official Java Policy at the present time, only a proposal

Re: .java files into /usr/share/java/repository

On Wednesday 11 August 1999, at 14 h 58, the keyboard of David Rocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > idem ... so why lib-xt-java and lib-xp-java don't do that! > (do what I say, not what I do ;-) Call that a bug.

Re: Release Dates

On Saturday 7 August 1999, at 14 h 14, the keyboard of Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > November 1, 1999. ... > What remains to be done: I plan to add, among the release goals, a proper Java policy and a common setup for all Java stuff (at the present time, there is no coordina

Re: Sun's Community Licence (Was: Various issues: kaffe, compilers, freeness, etc.

[debian-legal: please CC: me, I'm not on this list.] On Wednesday 28 July 1999, at 11 h 24, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - A total ban on SCSL code. The license is simply too dangerous to > > include in the Debian distributi

Re: Java binaries: CLASSPATH, -classpath, -cp?

On Tuesday 17 August 1999, at 18 h 31, the keyboard of Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now if I'd like to make this script indepedent of the > java-virtual-machine, what do I have to do ? If all the Java virtual machines follow the Policy (built-in CLASSPATH which includes the Repo

Re: CLASSPATH settings for JDBC

On Thursday 19 August 1999, at 11 h 46, the keyboard of Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CLASSPATH=.:/usr/local/share/LocalJava:/usr/lib/jdk1.1/lib/classes.zip > > nut this doesn't work, too. Strange. The second way works for me. > By the way, if I get the freetds_jdbc working I pla

Re: Problems with examples of libpsjava

On Thursday 19 August 1999, at 14 h 37, the keyboard of David Rocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you should have /usr/lib/postgresql/lib/postgresql.jar in your > CLASSPATH. > > (not java-policy complaint... should get a bug report...) Not yet: the text of the Policy is not even included in jav

Re: CLASSPATH settings for JDBC

On Wednesday 25 August 1999, at 15 h 51, the keyboard of Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Depends: java-compiler-dummy, java-virtual-machine-dummy, java-common java-compiler, java-virtual-machine java-compiler-dummy is just an implementation (actually a simple wrapper) of java-comp

Re: native threads and Invocation API

On Friday 27 August 1999, at 12 h 14, the keyboard of Gene McCulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should the Debian policy for Java include the location of the .so so > that programs that use the Invocation API can have a standard link > path? I cannot help you on the native threads, which I don'

Fwd: Uploaded java-common 0.2 (source all) to master

ution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Description: java-common - Base of all Java packages Changes: java-common (0.2) unstable; urgency=low . * The policy is now included, and in XML form. Closes #42114 Files: e2867b28eb5305cc4035d533bd8055

A bug against kaffe fror Java programs which fail?

Many Java programs in Debian work with the JDK and fail with kaffe (there is apparently no other Java VM packaged for more comparisons and kaffe is the only free one). I believe these are bugs in kaffe itself. Do you accept/wish that I fill in a bug report in eac

Re: Fwd: Uploaded java-common 0.2 (source all) to master

On Friday 3 September 1999, at 9 h 11, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Soon, I'll start to bug (with Severity:wishlist) the Java packages which do > not comply. Bug reports sent. Let's see the results before writing a triumphal press re

Re: Bug#44460: Fails to comply with the proposed Java Policy

On Monday 6 September 1999, at 16 h 7, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As far as I can see, the java-common package is entirely pointless as > regards java bytecode compilers and JVMs depending on it. It seems to > contain absolutely nothing they could need. java-common contains the

Re: A bug against kaffe fror Java programs which fail?

On Monday 6 September 1999, at 11 h 40, the keyboard of Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephane, it might be best to file the bugreports upstream.. the problems in > kaffe also apply to redhat, suse, and probably non-linux distributions too. Yes, but this is not the common Debian way

Re: kaffe orphaned?

On Monday 6 September 1999, at 20 h 49, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > have perhaps not been optimally responsive I believe that I have kept my > kaffe installs fairly current. Ean, you will not like what I'll write. If you prefer to stay cool, you may want to

Re: Bug#44460: Fails to comply with the proposed Java Policy

On Tuesday 7 September 1999, at 8 h 23, the keyboard of "Cris J. Holdorph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks. Before you, nobody on debian-java was aware of the difference. > > I disagree. I was/am well aware of the difference between Java code and > Java bytecode. My English must be real

Re: A bug against kaffe fror Java programs which fail?

On Monday 6 September 1999, at 20 h 58, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you can isolate those bugs in a useful way. Hmmm, I disagree, on the basis of the Social Contract. It says 'We won't hide problems'. It means, IMHO, that we should report bugs, even not

NMU of guavac

I've just made it, with the agreement of the maintainer (who is looking for someone to adopt it, BTW). guavac now fully complies with the proposed policy, which allows to test it in greater detail. Warning: guavac is orphaned upstream. For real work, use gcj or jikes.

The problem of core classes for Java compilers (Was: Bug#44462: jikes: jikes does not find core classes

[It may be a good idea to copy important messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] since this problem is logged as a jikes bug.] Jikes has a problem with core classes. It can use those of the JDK or those of kaffe (which allows it to stay free) but is is necessary to tell it where to find them. Which mea

Re: kaffe orphaned?

On Tuesday 7 September 1999, at 10 h 55, the keyboard of Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > him first. He does respond to email. The old bugs in the bts are from before > he became maintainer, so he hasn't gotten email on them. It is an incredible reasoning. I personnally took over the

Re: The problem of core classes for Java compilers (Was: Bug#44462: jikes: jikes does not find core classes

On Wednesday 8 September 1999, at 15 h 35, the keyboard of "Mike Goldman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just FWIW, I do configure Jikes for Debian to automatically find clases in > the Java Repository. So if you manually unpack core classes into > /usr/share/java/repository, Jikes will presently

Re: kaffe orphaned? (extended reply)

On Wednesday 8 September 1999, at 21 h 8, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Despite this, Mike > Goldman has decided to make out that I have "orphaned" Kaffe. The assumption was certainly false, but anyone can have doubts when reading the bug list of kaffe. O

Re: Suggestion: Post-installation README file (Was: The problem of core classes for Java compilers)

On Thursday 9 September 1999, at 0 h 16, the keyboard of Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most of Unix is based on configuring or controlling things with > environment variables. Things (e.g., Sun's JVM) are designed with > that in mind. When there aren't appropriate defaults befor

Re: Java Policy Question

On Friday 10 September 1999, at 10 h 2, the keyboard of David Warnock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a) often need newer versions than have been packaged eg we had problems > with jdk1.1.7 and are now using jdk1.1.7b which is not packaged in > potato. IMHO, this should be a bug/wishlist against th

Re: Debian Java outlook/ Re: kaffe orphaned?

On Thursday 9 September 1999, at 12 h 21, the keyboard of Bernd Kreimeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >- defining a Java equivalent to libc > (collection of utility classes shared among Java "binaries") Isn't it java.lang.* ? >- a free compiler to convert pure Java source or "bina

Re: Debian Java outlook/ Re: kaffe orphaned?

On Friday 10 September 1999, at 9 h 7, the keyboard of "Cris J. Holdorph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The debian-java list and Debian's interaction with Java has been > the only thing that has come close to pushing me away from Debian > entirely. I understand. Java on Debian is far from being

Re: Debian Java outlook

On Friday 10 September 1999, at 10 h 50, the keyboard of Jim Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps the question of a "Debian Java Policy" might be handled as > part of the creation of a nonexistent non-profit debian-java > fellowship/organization/sub-debian_organization. Well, this is

Re: s/repository/classes/

On Sunday 12 September 1999, at 4 h 33, the keyboard of =?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > /usr/share/java/repository is a pretty ugly name, let's use the cooler > /usr/share/java/classes. Added to the policy, as a suggestion. > (Even if I think this approach

Re: Versions for java-virtual-machine

On Tuesday 14 September 1999, at 23 h 11, the keyboard of Julio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can a virtual package have a version (to be set by a 'real' package that > implements it)? If so, it'd be useful to have java-virtual-machine packages > to set their jdk-compliance versions (1.0, 1.1, 1

Re: Versions for java-virtual-machine

On Thursday 16 September 1999, at 20 h 5, the keyboard of Julio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > matters here is the Java virtual machine specification. I agree that using jdk > compliance is not a good thing, but it'd be better to provide a more complete > list of what a jdk provides. For example,

Re: A packaging scheme...

On Tuesday 28 September 1999, at 12 h 12, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of the irritating things about the Java packaging scheme is that you > get this functional disassociation because of the organizational boundries. > > In other words, you have: > > ne

Re: Versions for java-virtual-machine

On Tuesday 28 September 1999, at 22 h 5, the keyboard of Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A full Java implementation implements not just the language specification > but also the Java virtual machine specification and the supposed API > specification. Right. For instance, kaffe, which

Re: A packaging scheme...

On Wednesday 29 September 1999, at 12 h 0, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a common library by organization. Let's say that you are writing an XML > program and are using classes from several different organizations. Having > to deal with classes coming out of: c

Re: A packaging scheme...

On Thursday 30 September 1999, at 10 h 30, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is exactly analogous to, say, the selection of thread implementations > for glibc 2.0. You are still free to use some other thread model if you care > to, but the default one that mos

Re: Hello

On Monday 4 October 1999, at 17 h 13, the keyboard of Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > discuss Java on > > Linux with you. ... > I am also forwarding your mail to our Debian-Java group so they are aware of > Sun's interest, and who may be able to provide answers to specific > question

Re: Speculation on the Sun conversation.

On Monday 11 October 1999, at 22 h 52, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rumor has it that Sun is looking at buying a Linux company. Perhaps > they are confused about the nature of Debian? Anyway, maybe this is > what caused our Sun mystery message. I got no reply

Re: jikes and dependencies with javac

On Wednesday 13 October 1999, at 23 h 25, the keyboard of Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just installed jikes. It doesn't work; it can't find any files > in /usr/share/java/repository/lang (which doesn't exist; only > the repository does). Question -- which package do I need to > i

ITP: DOM Java bindings

I plan to package the W3C's Java bindings for DOM . The recent versions of my XT package needs it, so either I package it, or "potato" is released without a XSL tool, which will be a problem in the XML "market". No technical prob

Working again on the Debian Java policy (Was: FREEZE RESCHEDULED

On Sunday 7 November 1999, at 13 h 19, the keyboard of Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm rescheduling the > freeze for mid-January, the weekend of the 15th and 16th. Therefore, we have more time for the Debian Java policy. I suspended any work on it because I thought potato was

Re: RFC: An alternative to /usr/share/java/repository

On Saturday 6 November 1999, at 18 h 14, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do understand that Debian policy discourages the concept of a > program requiring that an environment variable be set in order to > operate sanely. Note there are several reasons to do s

Re: RFC: An alternative to /usr/share/java/repository

On Sunday 7 November 1999, at 7 h 40, the keyboard of Christopher Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) The global CLASSPATH environmental variable never worked for me. I have > too > many different versions of JVMs (blackdown, ibm, kaffe, 1.1, 1.2) Yes, that the major pain with most Java envi

Re: RFC: An alternative to /usr/share/java/repository

On Sunday 7 November 1999, at 15 h 30, the keyboard of Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While we are at it: I already expressed my dislike for the naming scheme > in the policy (lib-X-java) which is taken from C libraries. This is a more general Policy issue. See bug #41113.

Editor for the Java policy (Was: RFC: An alternative to /usr/share/java/repository

On Saturday 6 November 1999, at 18 h 14, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know that it is a bit late in the game to get this concept into > freeze [No longer an issue.] > If this idea is recieved favorably perhaps it and some other > formalizations can be fol

Re: Editor for the Java policy (Was: RFC: An alternative to /usr/share/java/repository

On Monday 8 November 1999, at 14 h 31, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is worth implementing. If you are strapped for time or are simply less > interested then maybe we should look to somebody else. I have enough time (I hope so) until potato is released. And I

System-wide env. variable (Was: RFC: An alternative to /usr/share/java/repository

On Monday 8 November 1999, at 17 h 26, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You say there's no way in Unix to set a system-wide env variable.Still, > since this is about Debian, wouldn't it be possible to mandate in the > policy that each shell would source a common file that sets up env >

Re: Java on linux questions

On Friday 12 November 1999, at 17 h 8, the keyboard of Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > linux if at all possible. So my main question is: What is the state of java > under linux? Under Linux, I don't know. Under Debian, you have a nice set of free and good Java compilers in the current

Re: site classes

On Tuesday 16 November 1999, at 18 h 48, the keyboard of nf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if this is already documented in the policy i apologize in advance. It isn't because the purpose was to start with a minimum policy (small is beautiful), where every obligation was carefully weighted. By a

Free Java : is native code the way?

I'm pleased to announce that I was successful in compiling the XML (hence the copy to debian-sgml) parser "xp" in native code with gcj. This means that we can run any application built over this XML parser without a Java virtual machine (we have two such machines

Re: psql and jdbc1.2

On Monday 29 November 1999, at 13 h 8, the keyboard of Khalid Ezzaraoui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > can someone help me to know what is wrong : Hmm, debian-java is more for Java developers and Java packages maintainers than for user support but: > I have : > in one side a Win98+jdk1.2.2+(

Re: On the use of pre-compiled classes in packages

On Monday 6 December 1999, at 5 h 47, the keyboard of Julio Maia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to have a direction to follow regarding the use of pre-compiled > classes in Debian packages. In other words, is really necessary to compile > all the classes that go inside a Debian package,

Re: On the use of pre-compiled classes in packages

On Monday 6 December 1999, at 10 h 49, the keyboard of Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it is Java-specific as JAR files are architecture independent (unlike > ..o and .a files). It changes nothing to the issues of freedom vs. non-freedom. > 1. building the package is a lot f

Re: On the use of pre-compiled classes in packages

On Tuesday 7 December 1999, at 2 h 44, the keyboard of Julio Maia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would RMS love the fact that some packages require the non-free JDK to > compile, while being distributed under the GPL? Muffin is in that case. Yes, it is probably on the edge of GPL-compliance. I p

Someone to test/package kjc/Kopi?

Yet Another Free Java Compiler, this time written in Java, and GPL: http://www.dms.at/kjc/

Re: Someone to test/package kjc/Kopi?

On Wednesday 8 December 1999, at 14 h 59, the keyboard of "Edouard G. Parmelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.dms.at/kjc/ > > KOPI Java Compiler (kjc) is include in Kaffe since release 1.0.5. There is no "kjc" package and, when I install the "kaffe" package, I don't have kjc.

Re: gcj doesn't work at all

On Friday 17 December 1999, at 12 h 3, the keyboard of Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > thought I fixed this. I will make a new upload this weekend. > fix: in debian/rules.patch don't add gcj-backport to the list of patches. Please, John, read the BTS before reporting a bug (#516

New version of the autoconf macros

Thanks to Devin Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who implemented everything which was missing, there is now a new set of autoconf macros for Java: http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/autoconf-Java/ * no longer need a Java compiler to test the Java VM or to test if a

Re: ibm jdk licence

On Monday 10 January 2000, at 18 h 19, the keyboard of Robert Varga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the current state of licensing the IBM jdk? I don't know, the installer is still in "contrib", but contains very few info about the licencing issues. You could file a bug/wishlist against it

Re: ibm jdk licence

On Tuesday 11 January 2000, at 12 h 19, the keyboard of Robert Varga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My interest is not in what distribution (main or contrib) the ibm-jdk can > be put in, but whether I can use IBM jdk on a debian machine at all. The installer is in Debian, which I take as a suffic

Re: Package NetRexx?

On Wednesday 12 January 2000, at 23 h 32, the keyboard of Rick Younie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I see most of the talk on the list concerns > licensing. Yes, this is an unfortunate Java-specific problem. Perl or Python lists are immune from it. Can I get an opinion on the freeness of

Re: Java policy (was Re: tasks)

On Thursday 20 January 2000, at 19 h 25, the keyboard of Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is covered in the Java policy. According to the Java policy, many > > packages can't run with Kaffe. > > Well, this policy is a little bit outdated (from Juli 1999 IIRC) There is no expirat

Re: Version

On Sunday 23 January 2000, at 13 h 20, the keyboard of Vincent Gaines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the most up to date version of debian java? There is nothing named Debian Java. We have many packages implementing such or such side of the Java language. > Is this compatible with Sun Ja

Re: Jserv for Sparc

On Tuesday 25 January 2000, at 9 h 25, the keyboard of Emmanuel Bruno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am trying to install Cocoon on a ultrasparc(running potato and the > blackdown port of the JDK), but it requires Jserv and I can't find it > (even in Incoming). Does someone know where I can f

Re: How about a Debian-Java-FAQ?

On Tuesday 1 February 2000, at 21 h 18, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could we please make a Debian-Java-FAQ if there is no one available? Good idea. Just do it > If no one volunteers I can make a draft and include it in > www.debian.org/deve

Re: FAQ-java draft

On Thursday 17 February 2000, at 21 h 4, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I accept all kinds of suggestions and text written or new questions. I will not repeat what has already been said (gcj and jikes missing, no list for potato). I suggest to add

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Tuesday 22 February 2000, at 13 h 21, the keyboard of "Remco van 't Veer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 6.1. How can I make Java servlets work? > > --- > > You can use: > > > > * GNUJSP > > > > * Apache Jserv > > Not yet packaged fo

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Monday 21 February 2000, at 18 h 40, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many of these components have been cloned under an Open Source > license. Use "free", not "open source" which means nothing and is only for the suits.

Re: New version of the Debian-java FAQ

On Tuesday 22 February 2000, at 22 h 1, the keyboard of Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that "free software" is to be preferred, but your argument > is strange. "Open source" is a precisely defined concept (and thus > "means nothing" is untrue), In theory, yes. It is

Cannot open /proc/xxx?

I'm sure I've already seen this bug, and it was JDK-related, but I cannot find it in the BTS. Any memory, someone? --- Forwarded Message X-Debian-PR-Message: report 59781 X-Debian-PR-Package: lib-xt-java X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 01:15:48 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Dietel

Fwd: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation

I think it is an important announce for Free Java. No date given for release, unfortunately: --- Forwarded Message To: Java Announcements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: libgcj / Classpath relicensing and cooperation Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 06 Ma

Re: Latest version of the Debian/JAVA FAQ

On Monday 20 March 2000, at 10 h 16, the keyboard of Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The current cvs version of gcj handles all JDK 1.1 constructs, > including inner classes. Did you try it on a complicated and real program like the XSL processor xt ? We will have no free XSL processor

Re: byteorder of java objects

On Monday 3 April 2000, at 12 h 27, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Or, should I perhaps be more interested in coming up with a stream > > cipher that I could use in conjunction with the java streams? Good idea. BlowfishDataOutputStream :-) > Sounds like you don't have much experien

Re: Latest Revision of the Debian/JAVA FAQ

On Monday 3 April 2000, at 18 h 24, the keyboard of Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 4.3. Are there known problems? > -- > > * Kaffe loops endlessly on the XML parsing. This *was* bug 51263 but the version currently in potato/frozen (bu

Re: java installation...

On Tuesday 23 May 2000, at 12 h 40, the keyboard of Bath Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have installed jdk1.2.2 under /usr dircetory on my debian > box(2.2.14).. Never do that. Under /usr, only packages are allowed. Other stuff should go under /usr/local.

Re: A plea for a distribution of the XML/Java Apache tools

On Tuesday 23 May 2000, at 14 h 21, the keyboard of Mike Bilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your real problem here is Sun, not the Linux distributors, because > the Sun licenses pretty much prevent redistribution of their tools. Thanks for the good explanation and proper pointing of responsabil

Re: Severe problems with JDK 1.2.2 and potato

On Saturday 3 June 2000, at 0 h 26, the keyboard of "Dr. Simon Read" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the Java package maintainers should give serious thought to > their policy, especially with respect to Java 2. The fact that Java 2 is not publicly redistributable is beyond Debian's c

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Thursday 29 June 2000, at 14 h 11, "C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Following your suggestion, I took a look at Kaffe's Web site and > downloaded the source tar file. There is no need to do so. Since there is a Debian package, 'apt-get install kaffe' should suffice. But: > 1. C

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 8 h 29, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. Compilability. Kaffe simply doesn't build on PowerPC Linux > >systems > > I wasn't aware of this problem (I didn't try kaffe on PowerPC). You should >

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Saturday 1 July 2000, at 1 h 18, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would rephrase it: if there is no Free Java solution ... > > then we should stop working with Java and start encouraging > > people to switch to another language. > > Java has such massive support,

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 15 h 13, the keyboard of "C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good for you. But some people need or *want* to use software that > isn't ``free'' (as in speech). I don't pretend I will force them to be free. I'm not trying to stop them (I cannot). I just say

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Tuesday 4 July 2000, at 23 h 0, the keyboard of Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems like it will take a while to stamp out this misunderstanding ... ... > However, the *documentation* of JDK 1.3 (including Swing) is *not* > under the SCSL and it specifically *does* permit indepen

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Saturday 8 July 2000, at 21 h 26, the keyboard of John Leuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a systems software > writer you can't choose what to provide, you have to provide what people > are using and want. I am sorry but this is plainly wrong. Debian is running on volunteer time and, yes

Re: two LGPL java packages that I want to distribute

On Monday 10 July 2000, at 9 h 9, the keyboard of david sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, they both require non-free JVMs and JDKs. As was said here, 'of course' is not obvious. You may want to check. > So, is this an acceptable practice for Debian? Basically, if a free package dep

Debian Java FAQ on line

With the agreement of Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, author and maintainer of the Debian Java FAQ (an huge work, Javier succeeded in making clear the awful mess of Java on Debian) I've uploaded a new version of java-common, which includes the FAQ. And I have put the FAQ o

Re: Java development on debian ppc

On Friday 30 June 2000, at 8 h 34, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > kaffe's debian/control file says: > > Architecture: i386 m68k powerpc sparc arm hurd-i386 > > so it should build out-of-the-box on a PowerPC ('apt-get --compile

kaffe on PowerPC: success

With the last CVS tree of kaffe and the help of Edouard Parmelan, fearless kaffe developer, everything works. Ultra-Short-HOWTO: 1) Get FFI from http://sourceware.cygnus.com/libffi/ (it does not seem to be in any Debian package) and install it (./configure; make

Re: Bug#66540: kaffe on PowerPC: success

On Friday 21 July 2000, at 12 h 6, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On this note I guess that the most sensible thing to do is go ahead and > put the CVS .debs I have in incoming. Do you plan to compile them with --with-libffi? At least on PowerPC, this is mand

Re: versioning?

On Saturday 22 July 2000, at 9 h 58, the keyboard of "E.L. Willighagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All jars files in /usr/share/java have no versioning. Is that policy? The policy leaves this issue more or less blank :-) > In Java versioning is also important... But troublesome. IMHO, the b

Re: kaffe on PowerPC: success

On Friday 21 July 2000, at 13 h 29, the keyboard of Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ultra-Short-HOWTO: ... > There are still bugs, of course, we'll see later. (Freenet crashes, for > instance, because of a problem with BigInteger). I had to install lib

Re: Other Kaffe packages...

On Saturday 12 August 2000, at 14 h 45, the keyboard of "Ean R . Schuessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is whether we want to have 5 or 6 Kaffe packages around, ie. kaffe, > kaffe-cvs, kaffe-prof-dbg, kaffe-cvs-prof-dbg, kaffe-pthreads, > kaffe-cvs-pthreads, etc. I would say to do the same a

A suggestion to list core classes

>From Edouard G. Parmelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, one of the Kaffe upstream >developers, a proposal to the Java policy: Each java-virtual-machine comes with a /etc/java-core-classes (using alternatives to manage it). This file contains the list of jars and directories with core classes. For Kaf

  1   2   >