isplay jar" (should point to jexec) might be informative. I'll try to
reproduce locally and report back.
I've reduced the severity of this bug from grave to important and have
added the tag moreinfo. Jerome, could you please provide the said info?
Kind regards
Andreas.
:19, Andreas Tille a écrit :
Hi Jerome,
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 01:42:40PM -0500, Jerome wrote:
I put here the results of the commands. Home that helps...
I think so since it confirms the expected reason for the issue you
observed.
$ sudo update-binfmts --display jarwrapper
update-binfmts: warnin
ectionMap extends
MultiHashMap {
public void removeAll(Map m) {
for (final Map.Entry e :
m.entrySet()) {
-this.remove(e.getKey(), e.getValue());
+this.removeMapping(e.getKey(), e.getValue());
}
}
should help.
Jerome
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
On 20/06/2014 17:07, Jerome Robert wrote:
> On 20/06/2014 13:43, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This packaged had many jar files embedded in it and it was
>> building fine. But after removing the embedded jars and adding them
>> in build-deps, there is one bui
n a packaging context this one, which avoid patching, is
better:
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
# Uncomment this to turn on verbose mode.
#export DH_VERBOSE=1
export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/default-java
+export ANT_OPTS=-Dfile.encoding=utf-8
%:
dh $@ --with ja
if you look at the build.xml:
it should be batik-1.8/lib/batik-libs-1.8.jar
Jerome (from Toulouse)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55a6ac1e.1090...@gmx.com
Hello Forum:
Is there a room for javax-1.3.1 in java-package ?
Thanks in advance,
Jerome
Hi:
On 13/08/15 23:10, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 13/08/2015 18:23, Jerome BENOIT a écrit :
>
>> Is there a room for javax-1.3.1 in java-package ?
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
> We have JavaFX 8 in Debian, why do you need the old version 1.3.1?
Because some Java software still use
Hello Forum:
I am considering to package jPedal [0,1], or at least to change to ITP the
un-activated RFP #547142 [2].
Before all, I surprise that it was not yet brought to Debian: is ther any good
reason for that ?
Thanks,
Jerome
[0] https://www.idrsolutions.com/openviewerfx/
[1] http
Hi:
Thanks for your reply.
On 08/09/15 17:57, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 08.09.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Jerome BENOIT:
>> Hello Forum:
>>
>> I am considering to package jPedal [0,1], or at least to change to ITP the
>> un-activated RFP #547142 [2].
>> Before al
Hello List:
On 08/09/15 17:57, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 08.09.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Jerome BENOIT:
>> Hello Forum:
>>
>> I am considering to package jPedal [0,1], or at least to change to ITP the
>> un-activated RFP #547142 [2].
>> Before all, I surprise that
Hello List:
On 18/10/15 17:34, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 17.10.2015 um 17:30 schrieb Jerome BENOIT:
> [...]
>
>> It appears that openviewerfx contains the JSon non-free license, a kind of
>> [1].
>> I tried to get ride of it by substituting it with libandroid-json-
want to use unstable packages without a reason and
> at the moment I think Java 7 is good enough. (At my work I need to
> use Java 6.) I understood that JavaFX should be installed with Java,
> bit it is not.
Which version ?
>
> -- Cecil Westerhof
Jerome
Forwarded Message
Subject: Bug#808782: RFS: jpedal4-lgpl [ITP] Java PDF Extraction Decoding
Access Library (LGPL4)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:21:02 +
Resent-From: Jerome Benoit
Resent-To: debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Debian Mentors
Date: Tue, 22
Forwarded Message
Subject: Bug#808783: RFS: openviewerfx [ITP] Open Source JavaFX PDF Viewer
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:48:02 +
Resent-From: Jerome Benoit
Resent-To: debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Debian Mentors
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:45:34 +0100
15 matches
Mail list logo
