> Why is there so an unkind Download-Side ? There is no description of
> the files. To know, that archive-0425=0517.tar.gz is an old
> E-Mail-list, you must first download it.
Well, it is custom that the distribution is <name>-<version>-tar.gz.
Everything else is just extra, and can be ignored. I've never
expected this to be a problem.
> Why was it not compiled with the option "--static" and here in the
> internet for download ?
??? I don't understand this one.
> Why is there ONLY the source-code ?
Japhar is still a developers only release. We do not want to support
binary distributions.
> I think to run Japhar on Win32 it must be ported to it. You HAVE
> ported it, but why is on your page not the source-code for Win32 ?
> You have compiled the Win32 Japhar-version. But why is it not on
> your page ?
The port is included in the distribution, but the make files (or
project files) required to build it is not included. It will require
some manual work to compile it yourself for Windows.
> And why need Japhar the position of the jdk-path ? Why is there not
> the jdk-classes enclosed there ?
This is no longer the case. Are there some obsolete documentation
lying around? Where did you read that Japhar need jdk?
We can not distribute JDK classes due to the SUN JDK licence. :-( Use
GNU Classpath instead.
> And then I have not a Question:
> Why is Japhar licensed under the LGPL and not under the GPL ? Is it
> possible, that it is licensed in any time under the GPL ?
What is wrong with LGPL. We choose LGPL to get the positive effect of
the GPL, and still allow others to include Japhar in their program,
even if their program is not GPLed.
--
##> Petter Reinholdtsen <## | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
O- <SCRIPT Language="Javascript">window.close()</SCRIPT>
http://www.hungry.com/~pere/ | Go Mozilla, go! Go!
