On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:15:31PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
> I think the Debian Java policy, as currently stated, is slightly flawed,
> as it tries to satisfy two goals that aren't completely orthogonal:
>
> 1) To get as much free Java software into Debian as possible, that runs
> without non-
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew> No it's not. But you can use the gcj produced .so files
> Andrew> with gcj. If I do all my Java
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 04:28:56PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew> To clarify, I'm talking about Java code compiled (eg, by
> Andrew> gcj) into architecture-specific mac
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:31:43PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Sunday 12 May 2002 22:00, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > Ok, then it is just a question of naming. Say my foo library can be
> > compiled to .class files and GCJ .so files. One option is to
> > package both
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I disagree on that class files should be placed in a -dev package for the
> same reason as I want every jar file to be placed in /usr/share/java
> (maybe with an exception for jvm:s). You should always be allowed
> to use the classes
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Java code is supposed to be
> portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a
> java program and should not be packaged as a such.
You've been listening to too much Sun marketing. :-)
Please give a rational reason
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~opal/java/policy.html/policy.html
The following,
Both are shipped as Java bytecode (*.class files, packaged in a
*.jar archive) and with an "Architecture: all" since Java
bytecode is supposed t
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 04:22:08PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:56:22PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Packages that use libtool to create shared libraries must
> > include the .la files in the -dev
> > + packages,
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:56:22PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Packages that use libtool to create shared libraries must
> include the .la files in the -dev
> + packages, if it includes them at all. Dynamically loadable
> + modules that are created with libtool
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 04:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/37/37338.html
>
> I am currently working on editing in the policy amendments,
> and I find this amendment quite confusing. Could the rpincipals
> involved in this clarify exact
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 04:46:48PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Description (from Joey Hess):
> .la files aren't useless, libtool can use them and they are essential
> to programs that use libltdl. Proposal is to include .la files in -dev
> packages if they are produced by the build process.
P
On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 03:42:41PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> IMHO, it should be possible to specify a global setting that works
> with ALL shells. Otherwise, the system administrator has to modify
> each shell individually.
But as long as we don't have a uniform solution ...
/etc% grep -i umask *
12 matches
Mail list logo
