This is a little curious. As 'advised' here recently, I have been
investigating GCJ first hand, and I understood from talking to Mark
Weilaard (GNU/Classpath lead) that GCJ/GIJ was able to run OO.o 2
perfectly well now (thanks to lots of input from Red Hat), and that
Caolan McNamara has been
Aditya,
unfortunately gdb does not seem to be an easy beast ;-). I tried various
versions by myself, what I found working quite well, is:
gdb --version
GNU gdb 6.3-debian
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
Kay Ramme writes:
Aditya,
unfortunately gdb does not seem to be an easy beast ;-). I tried various
versions by myself, what I found working quite well, is:
gdb --version
GNU gdb 6.3-debian
[...]
I am also using this version, and it works indeed good, however it
still has the problem
Kay Ramme writes:
Aditya,
unfortunately gdb does not seem to be an easy beast ;-). I tried various
versions by myself, what I found working quite well, is:
gdb --version
GNU gdb 6.3-debian
[...]
I am also using this version, and it works indeed good, however it
still has the problem that
Hi,
The only difference I can see is that the OOo 2.0 tree seems to
require JDK 1.4.X or later as its baseline.
(There are a number of java projects that require JDSK 1.4.X or
higher to work).
Also have the Sun specific classes been removed yet?
Kevin
On May 10, 2005, at 4:42 AM, Kay Ramme -
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
The only difference I can see is that the OOo 2.0 tree seems to
require JDK 1.4.X or later as its baseline.
(There are a number of java projects that require JDSK 1.4.X or
higher to work).
Indeed, the database wizards don't work on 1.3.1. :-(
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
There are still uses of Sun-specific classes (I know about uses in
module sandbox, at least). Feel free to fix this. :)
I don't have the skill to fix this. I do, however, work very hard on
other areas where I do have the skill to contribute. But the fact that I
don't
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Someone just informed me off-list that this email could be taken the
wrong way. I'd like to clarify that what I mean to say is let's not
dwell on this. Personally, I don't think that a fork would be
successful, but what I was trying to say is that we shouldn't make
Additionally, I've noticed that if I open the ftp file directly by
typing it in the URL box (in 1.1.4) the document will open read/write,
but with 1.9.100 it opens readonly, which says to me that either some
program setting is different (and I haven't found one which controls
this, like a
