Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> But it is more than clear that those users will then get the "This
> function requires a JRE" notification. This hasn't been a problem in
> OOo-land, so why should it be a problem for LO?
>
Because the default OOo install does include a JRE.
Otherwise, I'm rather indiff
On 03/12/2010 Michael Meeks wrote:
> We cannot bundle the JRE (as Oracle do)
Wouldn't it be possible to bundle a free Java implementation? I haven't
followed the status of the ongoing efforts toward a free Java recently,
but if it is stable enough and cross-platform (I heard a Mac OS X
version sta
Hi Michael, *,
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> [...]
> A. it makes LibreOffice easier to build, to not require Java
> [...]
> I (personally) have had -tons- of weirdo java build issues
> in the past, Lubos builds --without-java
I don't know who/what Lubo
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 11:03 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> A. it makes LibreOffice easier to build, to not require Java
> + I made this point, Spaetz has some examples of build failure
> with different Javas / Ant (that speak of much frustration
> and
> wasted time), Jona
What fun,
It seems this is rather a polarising question, so of course it makes
sense to pause and think it through some more; here is my attempt to
summarise the major arguments & their stake-holders :-)
A. it makes LibreOffice easier to build, to not require Java
+ I made this po
