Would there be objections to a new release available on May 5? Mostly
to get the recent changes requiring VM support out there on the ftp
site but also to show the progress with other packages.
I have not been able to perform all of the tasks I would have liked
before
Hi,
On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 22:40, Julian Scheid wrote:
Julian Scheid wrote:
but perhaps it is better to wait with that
until the files contain the appropriate (C) lines. So perhaps
take it down again?
Didn't notice that you already included the correct (C)
statement, my fault.
No,
Hi,
On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 22:37, Julian Scheid wrote:
Some hints for Classpath documentation authors:
- All package docs are missing (the package.html file
in the package directories.) This makes the index
page look somewhat deserted (the right table column
ought to contain
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard wrote:
I checked in stubs for all java and javax subpackages.
But now that I run gjdoc it seems that it does not like the fact that
there are title tags in it. It gives errors like:
WARNING: Invalid Unicode character 0x0 in javadoc markup has been
stripped And it
John Leuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So it doesn't copy the .class files over to a $prefix/classpath directory?
That's what I was expecting.
make install should do that if there is no glibj.zip in lib/.
Brian
--
Brian Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 21:07, Julian Scheid wrote:
The clean solution of this problem would require gjdoc to parse HTML,
something that wasn't necessary so far and needs to be implemented.
But Javadoc requires the htmlbody.../body/html structure and so,
to be compatible with Javadoc,
Julian Scheid wrote:
Mark Wielaard wrote:
I checked in stubs for all java and javax subpackages.
But now that I run gjdoc it seems that it does not like the fact that
there are title tags in it. It gives errors like:
WARNING: Invalid Unicode character 0x0 in javadoc markup has been
7 matches
Mail list logo
