Bug#362500: eclipse uninstallable for amd64
2006/4/13, Joel Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: eclipse version 3.1.1-8 is uninstallable on my amd64 box due to the mixed upgrade to 3.1.2-1 in the repository. You are right. I didn't noticed it before.It affects me too, because I use a powerpc, which also not available. @Michael: Do you know what goes wrong? Stephan Michels ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#358594: eclipse binary, desktop/menu things should be in eclipse-platform
2006/3/23, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Package: eclipse Version: 3.1.2 Forwarded from https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/eclipse/+bug/35871 I have just installed eclipse-platform-gcj on dapper and I have no /usr/bin/eclipse script anywhere on my system. It appears this is supposed to be in the eclipse-platform-common package but it's not. Even though it shouldn't be required, I tried installing the full eclipse package and sure enough /usr/bin/eclipse was hiding there. This is not a viable solution, however, as the eclipse package additionally requires me to install: ant-optional, eclipse-jdt, eclipse-jdt-common, eclipse-pde, eclipse-pde-common, eclipse-source, junit None of which I want to install. It seems that the core eclipse-platform files like /usr/bin/eclipse should either be moved back to eclipse-platform-common or the SDK files (and required dependencies) should be moved back into the eclipse-sdk package as it used to be. The eclipse executeable should be in the eclipse package. eclipse-platform-gcj is not a stand-alone package Through the installation of the eclipse package you ensure that you have everything installed. If you don't install all eclipse packages, then you will have missing dependencies in eclipse if you don't install for example the pde plugins. Eclipse won't work correctly without patching the features. And even if it works with patching of the features, I don't think it's a good idea, because other plugins can depend on the core plugins and then they will missing some plugins. @Michael: I really think its a better idea to a have one package, The current situation caused to much troubles. What do you think? Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#356028: eclipse-ecj is version 3.1.0, not 3.1.2
2006/3/9, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED]: if ecj-java works, ecj-java -help still says it's version 3.1.0, not 3.1.2 Hmm, doesn't happen to me: $ ecj-java -help | grep 3.1 testing /usr/lib/j2sdk1.4-ibm...Eclipse Java Compiler v_585_R31x, 3.1.2 release, Copyright IBM Corp 2000, 2006. All rights reserved. $ ecj-java -v testing /usr/lib/j2sdk1.4-ibm...Eclipse Java Compiler v_585_R31x, 3.1.2 release, Copyright IBM Corp 2000, 2006. All rights reserved. $ ecj -v Eclipse Java Compiler v_585_R31x, 3.1.2 release, Copyright IBM Corp 2000, 2006. All rights reserved. Does it still occur? Thank you, Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#361696: libswt3.1-gtk-jni: Coarse dependencies
2006/4/9, Shaun Jackman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please put the Gnome and Mozilla shared libraries into their own binary packages to reduce the coarseness of libswt3.1-gtk-jni's dependencies. If I put the jni libraries into separate packages, then I have to separate the swt java lib too. This is much work and I don't see any benefit I would gain. Moreover swt wasn't design my the eclipse team to be apportionable. Do you see any reason why we should do it? Thank you, Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#352184: eclipse: cannot build from source with firefox support
2006/2/10, Michael Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The support for firefox-dev is for Ubuntu. It doenst exist on Debian. That is intentional. We removed the Dependencies on firefox becuase it just doesnt work. We are still investigating this. The only thing that works currently is the mozilla-browser. firefox misses some symbol in its libraries. When this solved we will readd the other browsers. I think we should switch to xulrunner. Using firefox for the browser bindings wasn't very successful and I don't want to install the mozilla browser only because of the browser bindings. Hopefully I can try it later with xulrunner. Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#361692: libswt3.1-gtk-jni: Conflicts with libswt-gnome-gtk-3.1-jni
2006/4/9, Shaun Jackman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unpacking libswt3.1-gtk-jni (from .../libswt3.1-gtk-jni_3.1.2-1_i386.deb) ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libswt3.1-gtk-jni_3.1.2-1_i386.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/lib/jni/libswt-gnome-gtk-3139.so', which is also in package libswt-gnome-gtk-3.1-jni To have the same swt lib into two different packages was not our intention. It would be good to have one swt lib in the archive, then such things won't occur. Is it possible to merge your swt package with our swt package? Can we resolve the current situation somehow? Thank you, Stephan Michels.. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#356027: eclipse-ecj installation error
2006/3/9, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED]: $ ecj-java -help cat: /etc/eclipse/java_home: No such file or directory Could not find a suitable JVM. maybe missing dependencies? It's not sure, that /etc/eclipse/java_home exists. Yes, seems so. java_home is installed by the eclipse package, but eclipse-ecj does only depend on eclipse-jdt-eclipse-platform-eclipse-rcp Stephan Michels. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#359945: /usr/bin/eclipse: source is not a POSIX shell command
This one time, at band camp, Stephan Michels said: 2006/3/29, Michal Politowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/bin/eclipse is a /bin/sh script but it uses the source command, which is not specified by POSIX, to read ~/.eclipse/eclipserc. Hmm, so, what sould we use instead of source? Maybe we can use . ~/.eclipse/eclipserc instead ... That's the correct way. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
