On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:10:10PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Oct 21, David Starner wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> > > With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this
> > > case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in c
On Oct 21, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> > With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this
> > case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in contrib nor in non-free.
>
> It can be placed in contrib. "free package
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:58:22PM +0400, Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> With current jdk license it cannot be put in non-free, right? In this
> case, openoffice cannot be put in main nor in contrib nor in non-free.
It can be placed in contrib. "free packages which require ... packages
which are not
Samuli Suonpaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Novodvorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have almost ready debian packages for openoffice but they have to
> > bad build-dependancies on non-free: libgpcl and jdk >= 1.2.2.
> > The most interesting thing is that jdk isn't needed during
> > r
Peter Novodvorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have almost ready debian packages for openoffice but they have to
> bad build-dependancies on non-free: libgpcl and jdk >= 1.2.2.
> The most interesting thing is that jdk isn't needed during
> runtime -- openoffice runs fine with it. I just didn't
Hello!
I have almost ready debian packages for openoffice but they have to
bad build-dependancies on non-free: libgpcl and jdk >= 1.2.2.
The most interesting thing is that jdk isn't needed during
runtime -- openoffice runs fine with it. I just didn't figured out
how openoffice can be compiled wi
6 matches
Mail list logo