Blackwell writes:
> David Herron wrote:
> >
> > An off the top of my head guess would be - do you have GNOME installed?
> >
> > Reasoning ... GtkToolkit refers to GNOME and would be using the GNOME
> > widgets as peers in the same manner the Motif widgets were formerly used.
please install the
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
>
> > gcj-4.1
>
> I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1 are really accurate.
> Is it r
Steve Langasek writes:
> so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to
> know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the upcoming etch
> release.
in the worst case, remove the binaries built from gcj-4.1,
ecj-bootstrap-gcj. How many build-dependencies will be broken? Did
Andrew Haley writes:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
> >
> > > - arm: debian only port, not yet submitted to upstream; runtime is
&
[didn't see this email reaching the lists, sending it again]
Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
gcj-4.1
java-gcj-compat
gcc-defaults
ecj-bootstrap
gjdoc
The packages don't show regressions compared to the versions currently
in testin
Wookey writes:
> As mentioned below - the debian arm java situation is currently not
> good. We would very much welcome any java types who could help us fix
> and/or understand the problems in various java packages. Do please
> spend a bit of time this weekend if you can on #debian-arm or
> #debian
> > M. If the gjc team changed it's packaging in all architectures and
> > pljava is depending on an upstream package it might be wiser to change
> > pljava and file the report on the plajava package
>
> Yes, it seems you're right. Too bad that I already filed a bug.
>
> So it should be r
Joost Kraaijeveld writes:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone tell if JNI_CreateJavaVM available in libgjc7-0 4.1.1-13
> AMD64 as it seems to be missing from my installation? If not, is it
> available somewhere els?
/usr/lib/gcj-4.1/libjvm.so
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
Marcus Better writes:
> Hello,
>
> the pkg-jboss project needs DFSG-free versions of Sun's JavaMail and Java
> Activation Framework libraries. Can anyone tell me whether the GNU versions
> (already in Debian) will work out of the box?
what do you mean by "out of the box"? If they don't work, plea
Tom Marble writes:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Currently, there is update-java-alternatives in java-common to manage
> > the various java commands and how they refer to which implementation.
> > People can however ignore it and update-alternatives themselves, things
> > can get out-of-sync,
Tom Marble writes:
> Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> > Tom Marble wrote:
> >> Current Debian Java Policy [1] in section "Chapter 2.1: Virtual Machines"
> >> stipulates "If a virtual machine supports native code, it must include
> >> the
> >> directory /usr/lib/jni in its search path for these dynamic li
Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
> and how to set priorities is unclear and not easy to decide on.
IIRC that we decided on the priorities. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2006/05/threads.html
> In the current Debian Java policy, java libraries are required to
> properly document how to modif
gcj-4.1 in experimental is not just about gcjwebplugin; it contains a
backport of a classpath-0.92 prerelease and gcj from the current
trunk. it's this upgrade which makes gcj interesting for etch. If we
do want to include, it has to be tested with packages currently
depending on it (packages like
Mark Wielaard writes:
> Make sure that it is removed from
> libjava/java/text/DateFormat.java and that there is a new file
> libjava/classpath/java/text/DateFormat.java
> Similar for SimpleDateFormat.java.
that was the hint needed. I had some empty .java files still laying
around :-/
Test results
Recently the FC developers did backport the classpath 0.92 changes
from the trunk to to the gcc-4_1-rh-branch; currently trying to port
these changes to the gcc-4_1-branch. You can find a diff at [1],
consisting of two patches to make the big patch apply cleanly and one
patch applied after the mer
Rafael Laboissiere writes:
> * Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-05 12:23]:
>
> > Please Build-Depends just on "gcj, fastjar" or more simple just
> > "java-gcj-compat-dev" and use JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/java-gcj. That is ALL
> > you need.
>
> Thanks for the hint. I installed jeava-gcj-compat
just drop libgcj6-dev, gcj depends on the correct version.
Rafael Laboissiere writes:
> [Please, Cc: to me since I am not subscribed to debian-java.]
>
> The autobuilders are failing to build the plplot package because the
> build-dependencies on java are not correct. I have:
>
> Build-Depe
Martin Kuball writes:
> Am Sunday, 28. May 2006 15:36 schrieb Matthias Klose:
> > Martin Kuball writes:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Why does libswt3.1-gtk-java depend on mozill-browser? Would a
> > > dependency on a generic browser suffice? I can'
Martin Kuball writes:
> Hi!
>
> Why does libswt3.1-gtk-java depend on mozill-browser? Would a
> dependency on a generic browser suffice? I can't believe that I have
> to install yet another browser just to run swt apps.
please read the eclipse changelog, if you cannot believe it.
--
To UNSUB
now that non-free java jre's and jdk's are available in non-free, we
should get some agreement about the priorities for the different tools
and environments. some proposals:
- things in main have higher priorities than things in contrib
and non-free.
- an alternative installed as a "set" of alt
Blackwell writes:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Blackwell a écrit :
> > [...]
> >
> >> Arnaud, I realize that you folks are working on Debian for free. But
> >> that for me is not an acceptable excuse for any kind of decision,
> >> because
> In view of the proposed policy amendments, would it make sense to have CDBS'
> ant class default to java-gcj-compat-dev, that is, set JAVA_HOME
> = /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj by default? Of course packages can still override
> this as before, but it would make things easier for new packages and
>
Shaun Jackman writes:
> It has been reported that swt-gtk -- and azureus, which depends on it
> -- does not work on amd64. I suspect this is true of all 64-bit
> architectures. If you have access to a 64-bit architecture besides
> amd64, I would very much appreciate your help with this bug. The
> v
ternative, which works well with major applications like
openoffice or eclipse. The fix is upstream and will be in 4.1, so
please be patient.
Matthias
PS: please don't CC control on replies.
>
> Sanyi
>
> 2005/10/13, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > for
Shaun Jackman writes:
> 2005/9/28, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >These excuses seem to be circular between swingwt and swt-gtk.
> > Classic "hint" situation. They both have to go in together; the
> > excuses are showing that if you move only one in, it breaks the
> > other. Send a me
See #176629: gij-3.2: package incorrctly provides java1-runtime. Is
this a somewhat valid report? which runtime implementations provide
the complete runtime?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Tromey writes:
> > "Ben" == Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ben> It seems then that this bug belongs to the gcj-3.3 package, which was
> Ben> generating the incorrect bytecode. I'm reassigning this accordingly.
>
> Any chance you could try gcj cvs? If this bug remains I'd lik
Updated Debian packages for the 1.4 runtime and sdk can be found at
http://cs.tu-berlin.de/~doko/tmp/. I know that Stephen did prepare
some packages, but did never upload them.
Juergen, is there a chance to move them to the blackdown archives?
Thanks, Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
Is there any reason to keep these packages? They are replaced by the
corresponding packages built from the gcc-3.3 source package.
Matthias
Stephen Zander writes:
> Package: gij-3.2
> Version: 1:3.2.2-0pre5
> Severity: important
>
> According to the Java policy, packages that provide java1-runtime must
> support the the complete java runtime environment. As gij fails to
> provide the java.awt.* classes, the provides on this package i
Stephen Zander writes:
> Package: gij-3.2
> Version: 1:3.2.2-0pre5
> Severity: important
>
> According to the Java policy, packages that provide java1-runtime must
> support the the complete java runtime environment. As gij fails to
> provide the java.awt.* classes, the provides on this package i
At http://master.debian.org/~doko/gcc you find new experimental
gcj/libgcj packages. This can be installed in parallel with the
gcX-2.95 packages from unstable, so it should be easy to play with the
experimental packages. With gcj-3.0 final I plan to remove the
gcj-2.95 and libgcj0 packages. Happy
At http://master.debian.org/~doko/gcc you find new experimental
gcj/libgcj packages. This can be installed in parallel with the
gcX-2.95 packages from unstable, so it should be easy to play with the
experimental packages. With gcj-3.0 final I plan to remove the
gcj-2.95 and libgcj0 packages. Happy
FAQ 5.1.2 potato
The kit is named ibm-jdk1.1-installer. The paragraph should be
rewritten. It's not alpha anymore, it's not at this location anymore.
It's part of potato for now. I would be interested how the license
prohibits the installation by an installer
The other comments regarding
Fixed in gcj-2.95.2-4.
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Friday 17 December 1999, at 12 h 3, the keyboard of Matthias Klose
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > thought I fixed this. I will make a new upload this weekend.
> > fix: in debian/rules.patch don
... thought I fixed this. I will make a new upload this weekend.
fix: in debian/rules.patch don't add gcj-backport to the list of patches.
Before someone loads up packages which use gcj, please be aware that
libgcj does not build on sparc (and noone tried for arm).
It lloks like the blackdown JDK has to be removed (according to the
weekly bug summary). As an alternative I would like to package an
installer for the ibm-jdk1.1 machine. A preliminary version can be
found at http://master.debian.org/~doko. Help on how to manage the
alternatives is apreciated.
In
I've put together an ibm-jdk1.1-installer (for 1.1.6); you find it at
http://master.debian.org/~doko. If someone wants to upgrade it for
1.1.8 ... there are some problems with the update-alternative
commands. The installation scripts are stolen from the
realplayer-installer.
301 - 339 of 339 matches
Mail list logo
