Bug#389887: libgetopt-java: Class loading problem
Package: libgetopt-java Version: 1.0.11-2 Severity: important I cannot get the Getopt class loaded if I execute a Java program which is inside a .jar file. I suppose this problem is related with upstream code, and not with debian packaging. However I already asked the upstream author to found out more on this bug, or at least to tell me where I am wrong, and I got no answer. So I am reporting this bug to the Debian BTS, hoping you can help me (and other people having the same issue) to solve this problem. Problem description follows: The getopt library itself is working very well, but I have problems loading it when I launch my program with the java executable from the command line. If I launch the .class file of my program, I have to explicitly specify your .jar file in the classpath, or the gnu.getopt.Getopt class won't be loaded. Usually it is enough to specify only the directory containing the jars files, but not with getopt: this makes me suspicious about how getopt is packaged. The previous is only a minor issue. In fact if I launch the .jar version of my program, there's no way to get gnu.getopt.Getopt loaded, so my program actually can't start. Googling around I found only another one developer with my problem, you can take a look at http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-111429.html I'm using debian, sun-java 1.5; deploying the jar file with eclipse (so I suppose the autogenerated MANIFEST file for my program is correct). -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-k7 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages libgetopt-java depends on: ii sun-java5-jre [java2-runtime] 1.5.0-08-1 Sun Java(TM) Runtime Environment ( libgetopt-java recommends no packages. -- no debconf information ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
nekohtml_0.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi Maintainer, rejected, your debian/copyright misses information. lib/xercesMinimal.jar is Apache licensed (look into it) and is also distributed without source. Not good. Also the src/ directories contain files under other licenses. You need to list such stuff. -- bye Joerg === If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the override file requires editing, reply to this email. ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Bug#389938: further info
Still looking into this problem, I found that the problem is that with sun's JVM, if web.xml is a symlink it could read it. I have always used a symlink to a file in /etc, with tomcat4 and sun's java 1.4 without problems. -- Martín Ferrari ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: nekohtml_0.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Joerg Jaspert wrote: rejected, your debian/copyright misses information. lib/xercesMinimal.jar is Apache licensed (look into it) and is also distributed without source. Not good. I don't understand this point. That file is not distributed in the binaries. It is only in the source tarballs. Also the src/ directories contain files under other licenses. Will check that. Marcus smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: nekohtml_0.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Marcus Better wrote: Joerg Jaspert wrote: rejected, your debian/copyright misses information. lib/xercesMinimal.jar is Apache licensed (look into it) and is also distributed without source. Not good. I don't understand this point. That file is not distributed in the binaries. It is only in the source tarballs. Acceptable but ugly is to have binaries in the orig.tar.gz which were built with the source found in the orig.tar.gz. If you rebuilt that very binary, or do not use that binary at all, this is ok. But not acceptable is to have a binary in the orig.tar.gz without source (DFSG #2). HTH, Daniel -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
