On 20.08.2012 20:31, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:12:01PM +0200, qboosh wrote:
FATAL:
http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/6u34-b04/jdk-6u34-linux-i586.bin
md5 mismatch, needed 60f304b5ecae14dab5ab0b0144b9c012, got
81ee08846975d4b8d46acf3b6eddf103
FATAL:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:20:27PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On 20.08.2012 20:31, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:12:01PM +0200, qboosh wrote:
FATAL:
http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/6u34-b04/jdk-6u34-linux-i586.bin
md5 mismatch, needed
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:38:25PM +0200, Paweł Gołaszewski wrote:
Proposal:
leave java-sun as 1.6.x line and make brand new package as oracle-java (or
java-oracle).
I don't like this – this would suggest one comes from Sun, the other
from Oracle, while both are from Oracle now and both were
here
as:
a) should update to 1.7, b) spec should be named java-oracle (or
oracle-java?)
Proposal:
leave java-sun as 1.6.x line and make brand new package as oracle-java (or
java-oracle).
Rationale:
there is a lot of places where java 1.6 is still required. And many where
1.7 has
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:36:08AM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
hmm. what to do here?
libmawt.so()(64bit) is provided by both packages,
so they don't actually depend on each other in loop
proves that i can uninstall java-sun-jre-X11 without java-sun-jre being
pulled down too.
moving
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:49:43PM +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
There is a problem with gcc-java vs java-sun-tools. These packages are
conflicting on each other but tons of java specs require one or another. This
means that manual uninstalling/installing on builders is required.
I
There is a problem with gcc-java vs java-sun-tools. These packages are
conflicting on each other but tons of java specs require one or another. This
means that manual uninstalling/installing on builders is required.
I guess that the only one conflicting file is /usr/bin/jar - I'm thinking
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 17:39, Szymon Siwek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:49:43PM +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
There is a problem with gcc-java vs java-sun-tools. These packages are
conflicting on each other but tons of java specs require one or another.
This means that manual
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 15:49, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
There is a problem with gcc-java vs java-sun-tools.
there was a thread about it on devel-pl:
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-pl/2006-July/135330.html
___
pld-devel-en
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something
No właśnie... czekaliśmy na to od lat...
Jest szansa, że uda się wrzucić Javę do Ac. :-)
Ktoś
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 09:59, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
Anybody want to do that, or should I?
You won the lottery! so You can do it ;)
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something
Great.
Maybe we could rebuild openoffice 1.x with java support, prepare
eclipse and push those
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Adam Gołębiowski wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something
Great.
Maybe we could rebuild openoffice
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:51:23PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
Maybe we could rebuild openoffice 1.x with java support, prepare
eclipse and push those to Ac.
openoffice 1.x? You must be joking. OOO 2 is the only version acceptable
for AC.
So, where OO1.* is going ? to supported or
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:05:34PM +0200, Adam Gołębiowski wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:51:23PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html
Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 13:51, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Adam Gołębiowski wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html
Jan Rekorajski wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 13:51, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Adam Gołębiowski wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:06:19PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
Don't you tempt me ; [1]
[1] to upgrade gcc to 3.4.x in AC...
That would be just great. Do something currently, when AC is freezed,
what hasn't been done for 2 or 3 years just because we were going to
freeze AC in the next month
Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 14:14, Andrzej Zawadzki wrote:
ooo2 doesn't build with gcc 3.3.6 for amd64
No oo1.1 for amd64... so doesn't matter ;-)
ooo1.1 doesn't support 64bit arches ;)
Like ooo2 (official) :-P
--
Andrzej Zawadzki
http://hedera.linuxnews.pl/_news/2006/05/16/_long/3852.html
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something
--
Jan Rękorajski| ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
bagginsatmimuw.edu.pl | OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC
# rpm -Uvh --repackage mozilla-firefox-plugin-java-sun-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm
java-sun-mozilla-plugin-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm
mozilla-plugin-java-sun-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm
java-sun-jre-X11-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm java-sun-jre-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm
java-sun-tools-1.5.0.06-1.athlon.rpm
error: Failed
21 matches
Mail list logo
