out it.
But orphaning means that you no longer wish to take responsibility for
the package. Perhaps you wanted to RFA instead?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
will include checking on bugs #279374 and #285203
and fixing anything that needs to be fixed on the kaffe side to get rid of
these bugs.
Also, is #286264 still an open issue, or should it be considered closed with
the most recent upload?
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
look at this proposal - and the questions I had regarding the necessary
interfaces - and discuss how this could be moved forward? In light of the
"debhelper comaintainers" topic earlier in the week, this seems like a good
time for us to put our heads together.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langas
out it.
But orphaning means that you no longer wish to take responsibility for
the package. Perhaps you wanted to RFA instead?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpIeoABocNhg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:12:35PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:22:19PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
> >>fop is currently not in testing although a valid candidate.
> >>A "solution" to the problem would be t
t? AFAIK the Java Packaging Team
> wants to build these libs from the eclipse source anyway, so the
> packages would vanish soon again.
He's asked for swt-gtk to be pushed in, not swingwt; AIUI, the swingwt
failure is a swingwt problem, not an swt-gtk problem, right?
--
Steve L
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:42:03AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > It's a little weird. The package that puts the plugin into firefox dir
> > > (via
> > >
keeping this updated version
of gcj-4.1 from being hinted into testing, though that seems to have been an
OOD error on the buildd; given back now.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the
I would love to see that happen, but I'm not an ARM porter and don't have
access to an appropriate ARM development environment that would let me work
on this; so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to
know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the u
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to
> > know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the upcoming etch
> > release.
> in the worst case, remove
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:23:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
> > > gcj-4.1
> > I'm wondering whe
d?
> the upstream tarball has the same code, just some more GFDL'ed files
> removed. changes from upstream svn are included as a diff.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. gcj-4.1 4.1.1-17 is unblocked, in
anticipation of the arm upload.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 01:55:17PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 09:58:46PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes:
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 02:16:54AM -0800, Peter Ronnquist wrote:
> > > > It seems like eclipse will not b
do, but there are a large
number of packages which depend on it and none of them seem to care about
update-java-alternatives; so I don't think we should consider this package
unusable just because this particular script is unusable.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me
14 matches
Mail list logo
