On 22 April 2014 20:58, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
> On 6 April 2014 23:10, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>> On 31 March 2014 13:38, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 March 2014 20:46, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>>> > On 30 March 2014 20:39, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>>> >> On Sun 30, March 20:03:51 Guillaum
On 6 April 2014 23:10, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
> On 31 March 2014 13:38, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>>
>> On 30 March 2014 20:46, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>> > On 30 March 2014 20:39, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>> >> On Sun 30, March 20:03:51 Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>> >>> You might be talking about "icedt
On 31 March 2014 13:38, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>
> On 30 March 2014 20:46, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
> > On 30 March 2014 20:39, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> >> On Sun 30, March 20:03:51 Guillaume Alaux wrote:
> >>> You might be talking about "icedtea-web" [0], the browser plugin that
> >>> enables som
On 30 March 2014 20:46, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
> On 30 March 2014 20:39, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>> On Sun 30, March 20:03:51 Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>>> You might be talking about "icedtea-web" [0], the browser plugin that
>>> enables some Java interpretation inside browsers? This is yet another
>
On 30 March 2014 20:39, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> On Sun 30, March 20:03:51 Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>> You might be talking about "icedtea-web" [0], the browser plugin that
>> enables some Java interpretation inside browsers? This is yet another
>> project provided by the IcedTea team.
>
> Indeed. T
On Sun 30, March 20:03:51 Guillaume Alaux wrote:
> You might be talking about "icedtea-web" [0], the browser plugin that
> enables some Java interpretation inside browsers? This is yet another
> project provided by the IcedTea team.
Indeed. Thank you for the clarification.
Could you provide an op
On 30 March 2014 19:38, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> On Sun 30, March 16:14:17 Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>> **We** (Arch Linux) do not patch anything here. We are just wondering
>> which way to go between:
>> 1- build from upstream OpenJDK by Oracle (the build process and result
>> are kind of "dirty", i
On Sun 30, March 16:14:17 Guillaume Alaux wrote:
> **We** (Arch Linux) do not patch anything here. We are just wondering
> which way to go between:
> 1- build from upstream OpenJDK by Oracle (the build process and result
> are kind of "dirty", it builds against included libraries that are
> shipped
On 30 March 2014 15:14, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Am 30.03.2014 11:21, schrieb Guillaume ALAUX:
>> I have been working on a package based on OpenJDK8 built from source
>> but without IcedTea that I think would fit to our repos. I still have
>> some work for it to be released but I would be in favor
Am 30.03.2014 11:21, schrieb Guillaume ALAUX:
> I have been working on a package based on OpenJDK8 built from source
> but without IcedTea that I think would fit to our repos. I still have
> some work for it to be released but I would be in favor of pushing
> this "OpenJDK without IcedTea" to extra
On 30 March 2014 14:23, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 30/03/14 21:36, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
>> On 30 March 2014 11:46, Andreas Radke wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:21:25 +0200
>>> schrieb Guillaume ALAUX :
>>>
Hi devs,
A new major version of Java went out recently [0]: "OpenJDK 8
On 30/03/14 21:36, Guillaume Alaux wrote:
> On 30 March 2014 11:46, Andreas Radke wrote:
>>
>> Am Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:21:25 +0200
>> schrieb Guillaume ALAUX :
>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> A new major version of Java went out recently [0]: "OpenJDK 8" but we
>>> do not have a package for it (for the fol
On 30 March 2014 11:46, Andreas Radke wrote:
>
> Am Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:21:25 +0200
> schrieb Guillaume ALAUX :
>
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > A new major version of Java went out recently [0]: "OpenJDK 8" but we
> > do not have a package for it (for the following reason) and some
> > Archers are asking q
Am Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:21:25 +0200
schrieb Guillaume ALAUX :
> Hi devs,
>
> A new major version of Java went out recently [0]: "OpenJDK 8" but we
> do not have a package for it (for the following reason) and some
> Archers are asking questions [1] or flagging our openjdk7 package as
> out of date
Hi devs,
A new major version of Java went out recently [0]: "OpenJDK 8" but we
do not have a package for it (for the following reason) and some
Archers are asking questions [1] or flagging our openjdk7 package as
out of date:
All Linux distros - including Arch - build OpenJDK using the IcedTea
pr
15 matches
Mail list logo