Re: [arch] Again on the "Firefox Affair"

2006-12-12 Thread Jan de Groot
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 01:14 +0100, bardo wrote: > Yeah, you're right, but in my understanding this looks like a > collaboration proposal to solve these problems. No Mozilla way, no > Debian way, just another path. That's what I was asking about: are we > with them or not? If they drop the require

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Damir Perisa
Tuesday 12 December 2006 19:22, Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote: | No, just OOo2. building it is really an art in itself... i hope they would switch to cmake or something easier to handle :) - respekt to the people who build it from source, thanx! | It could be the way I installed jdk1.6 , could you

Re: [arch] Again on the "Firefox Affair"

2006-12-12 Thread bardo
2006/12/13, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The only thing that it would change IMHO is the place to get patches > from. There's nothing in the article about the licensing and trademark > issues. Yeah, you're right, but in my understanding this looks like a collaboration proposal to solve thes

Re: [arch] Again on the "Firefox Affair"

2006-12-12 Thread Rodrigo Coacci
On 12/12/06, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 20:58 +0100, bardo wrote: > Is there any official Arch position about this? > http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=96 > > The only thing that it would change IMHO is the place to get patches from. There's nothing in the artic

Re: [arch] Again on the "Firefox Affair"

2006-12-12 Thread Jan de Groot
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 20:58 +0100, bardo wrote: > Is there any official Arch position about this? > http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=96 > > The only thing that it would change IMHO is the place to get patches from. There's nothing in the article about the licensing and trademark issues. ___

[arch] Again on the "Firefox Affair"

2006-12-12 Thread bardo
Is there any official Arch position about this? http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=96 bardo ___ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Hussam Al-Tayeb
On 12/12/06, Damir Perisa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > anything else besides OO2? > > - D > > -- > I had a friend who was ready for a memory upgrade on his Mac notebook, > and he wanted to know how much "megaram" he needed. > > > ___ > arch mailing list >

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Damir Perisa
anything else besides OO2? - D -- I had a friend who was ready for a memory upgrade on his Mac notebook, and he wanted to know how much "megaram" he needed. pgpKcj4pIen1M.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http:

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread David Rosenstrauch
I don't know how specifically you do it when compiling OpenOffice. From a Java command line, you do "javac -target ...", but I imagine that step is probably buried somewhere in the OpenOffice. build. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about OpenOffice. can comment more intelligently here. DR

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Hussam Al-Tayeb
On 12/12/06, David Rosenstrauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote: > > At least for me, OpenOffice 2.1.0 won't compile with jdk 1.6 , it works > > with 1.5 > > Perhaps this is the problem: > > "There are changes to the compiler's default, so make sure that you set > -source and -

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread David Rosenstrauch
Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote: > At least for me, OpenOffice 2.1.0 won't compile with jdk 1.6 , it works with > 1.5 Perhaps this is the problem: "There are changes to the compiler's default, so make sure that you set -source and -target options explicitly." http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/java_se_6 S

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Pierre Schmitz
Am Dienstag, 12. Dezember 2006 12:55 schrieb Hussam Al-Tayeb: > At least for me, OpenOffice 2.1.0 won't compile with jdk 1.6 , it works > with 1.5 OOo is broken anyway. ;-) I made jdk6-packages for Arch32 and Arch64 and even complex programs like Eclipse are running fine. (and yes, it seems to be

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Hussam Al-Tayeb
At least for me, OpenOffice 2.1.0 won't compile with jdk 1.6 , it works with 1.5 ___ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Damir Perisa
Tuesday 12 December 2006 10:34, Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote: | I know Sun just released jre 1.6 but please don't upgrade the | ArchLinux jre and jdk to 1.6 as it breaks some stuff. It is not | 100% backwards compatible. what breaks? can you give a list? - D -- I took an IQ test and the results wer

Re: [arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Damnshock
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 10:34, Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote: > I know Sun just released jre 1.6 but please don't upgrade the > ArchLinux jre and jdk to 1.6 as it breaks some stuff. It is not 100% > backwards compatible. Maybe it is possible to have both versions for a time, right? Surely it is not so

[arch] Sun java 6.0

2006-12-12 Thread Hussam Al-Tayeb
I know Sun just released jre 1.6 but please don't upgrade the ArchLinux jre and jdk to 1.6 as it breaks some stuff. It is not 100% backwards compatible. Regards, Hussam. ___ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/