On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 09:13, Udo Rader wrote:
> Am Die, 2002-06-18 um 15.35 schrieb Borsenkow Andrej:
> > > today/yesterday a new version of both the jre and jsdk came out
> > > (1.4.0_01-b03 binary release). one of the "bugs" resolved is the now
> > > support for glibc-2.2.5, so theoretically tha
Am Die, 2002-06-18 um 15.35 schrieb Borsenkow Andrej:
> > today/yesterday a new version of both the jre and jsdk came out
> > (1.4.0_01-b03 binary release). one of the "bugs" resolved is the now
> > support for glibc-2.2.5, so theoretically that should solve the issue.
> >
>
> glibc-2.2.5 != gcc
> On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 08:35, Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
>
> > > today/yesterday a new version of both the jre and jsdk came out
> > > (1.4.0_01-b03 binary release). one of the "bugs" resolved is the
now
> > > support for glibc-2.2.5, so theoretically that should solve the
issue.
> >
> > glibc-2.2.
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 08:35, Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
> > today/yesterday a new version of both the jre and jsdk came out
> > (1.4.0_01-b03 binary release). one of the "bugs" resolved is the now
> > support for glibc-2.2.5, so theoretically that should solve the issue.
>
> glibc-2.2.5 != gcc-3.1.
> today/yesterday a new version of both the jre and jsdk came out
> (1.4.0_01-b03 binary release). one of the "bugs" resolved is the now
> support for glibc-2.2.5, so theoretically that should solve the issue.
>
glibc-2.2.5 != gcc-3.1.1. So theoretically it has nothing to do with
original proble
today/yesterday a new version of both the jre and jsdk came out
(1.4.0_01-b03 binary release). one of the "bugs" resolved is the now
support for glibc-2.2.5, so theoretically that should solve the issue.
but I haven't had time to try it.
udo
p.s.: still trying to compile the monster from source
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 16:23, Roger wrote:
> dunno...maybe if redhat & mandrakesoft,and all the other distro's write
> a letter(s) to SUN asking them to recompile for gcc-3.1, they just might
> do soas doing so would promote & guarantee their JAVA to be used
> within Linux. The sooner SUN gets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 13 Jun 2002 8:41 pm, Charles A Edwards wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:15:19 +0200
>
> Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, I somehow do not think that Sun will release a special
> > gcc-3.1 Mandrake edition of their JDK
> So sprach Udo Rader am 2002-06-15 um 18:18:13 +0200 :
>> In general I doubt that "normal" users would be happy with having to
>
> Yes, that's true - but that's what PLF is for ;)
Nope, neither. At least, not with MDK resources. On _your_ belief if you
want.
So sprach Udo Rader am 2002-06-15 um 18:18:13 +0200 :
> In general I doubt that "normal" users would be happy with having to
Yes, that's true - but that's what PLF is for ;)
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english)
Homepage: http://www
On Sat, 2002-06-15 at 11:18, Udo Rader wrote:
> In order to get it build with gcc 3.1.1, I had to patch 3 files:
> - hotspot/src/share/vm/opto/loopnode.hpp
> - hotspot/src/share/vm/prims/jvmdi.cpp
> - hotspot/src/share/vm/c1/c1_FrameMap.hpp
>
> After that I ran into a linker problem, that I'm not
hi,
I just tried to compile it using your (modifed) settings, but ran into
major problems:
In order to get it build with gcc 3.1.1, I had to patch 3 files:
- hotspot/src/share/vm/opto/loopnode.hpp
- hotspot/src/share/vm/prims/jvmdi.cpp
- hotspot/src/share/vm/c1/c1_FrameMap.hpp
After that I ran
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 12:25, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > And last - the build instructions say that there are motif 2.1
> > sources included with the src package. Is that true?
>
> I don't know, I used Lesstif as a replacement. Or, I hope it used t
÷ ðÔÎ, 14.06.2002, × 21:25, Gwenole Beauchesne ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> > And last - the build instructions say that there are motif 2.1
> > sources included with the src package. Is that true?
>
> I don't know, I used Lesstif as a replacement. Or, I hope it used the
> ALT_MOTIF_DIR I requested.
>
It is in
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Hmm, I also just tried to build it - what are the "DEVTOOLS" the j2sdk
> needs?
[gb@no po]$ cat ~/hotspot/make.sh
make ALT_MOTIF_DIR=/usr/X11R6
ALT_BOOTDIR=/home/gb/hotspot/JDK1.4/usr/lib/jdk-1.4.0 ALT_DEVTOOLS_PATH=/
ALT_JAVAWS_PATH=/home/gb/hotspot
So sprach Gwenole Beauchesne am 2002-06-14 um 13:34:03 +0200 :
> What? It works. Last time I built it was 2002/05/26.
Hmm, I also just tried to build it - what are the "DEVTOOLS" the j2sdk
needs? And how did you patch the Makefile, so that it accepts Cooker
and gcc 3.1.1? And last - the build i
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > Just an idea.
> A good one, but i think Gwenole already tried and failed...
What? It works. Last time I built it was 2002/05/26.
Jürgen Zimmermann wrote:
>>actually i'm trying... i've downloaded the sources ( 45Mb),
>
>
> Just for the curious: Where did you get them?
http://wwws.sun.com/software/java2/index.html
gabor
So sprach Guillaume Rousse am 2002-06-14 um 11:46:57 +0200 :
> There are available from Sun, when you search them carefully :-)
Do you mean the j2sdk-1_4_0-src-scsl.zip available at
http://wwws.sun.com/software/java2/download.html ?
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (germ
Le Vendredi 14 Juin 2002 11:40, Jürgen Zimmermann a écrit :
> > actually i'm trying... i've downloaded the sources ( 45Mb),
>
> Just for the curious: Where did you get them?
There are available from Sun, when you search them carefully :-)
> > i just didn't have the time to recompile it...
>
> Per
> actually i'm trying... i've downloaded the sources ( 45Mb),
Just for the curious: Where did you get them?
> i just didn't have the time to recompile it...
Perhaps we could create a "skeleton" package: just the spec file and the
patches needed for a gcc-3.1 compile.
The sources for the jdk wo
actually i'm trying... i've downloaded the sources ( 45Mb),
i just didn't have the time to recompile it...
bye,
gabor
Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach gabor am 2002-06-14 um 00:06:43 -0400 :
>
>>why don't you compile the jdk with gcc3.1? :-)
>
>
> Well, why don't you? Since you already se
So sprach gabor am 2002-06-14 um 00:06:43 -0400 :
> why don't you compile the jdk with gcc3.1? :-)
Well, why don't you? Since you already seem to have the sources, it
shouldn't be a big task, should it?
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (engli
--- Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, I know, this has been beaten to death. Suns
> JDK won't work with a
> gcc-3.1 compiled Mozilla.
If I understand right, this is only a problem because
of the way Mozilla uses the JDK, and doesn't affect
Konqueror. If so, why not use Konq for
why don't you compile the jdk with gcc3.1? :-)
gabor
Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Yes, I know, this has been beaten to death. Suns JDK won't work with a
> gcc-3.1 compiled Mozilla.
>
> However, I somehow do not think that Sun will release a special gcc-3.1
> Mandrake edition of their JDK.
On 2002.06.13 Alexander Skwar wrote:
>Am Don, 2002-06-13 um 22.38 schrieb Elijah P Newren:
>
>> If you look at www.distrowatch.com/redhat.plp, you'll see rawhide
>> (RedHat's equivalent of cooker?) listed with gcc 3.1. As a sidenote,
>
>Ah, okay. Thanks.
>
>> Doesn't sound like too big an "if"
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Charles A Edwards wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:15:19 +0200
> Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However, I somehow do not think that Sun will release a special
> > gcc-3.1 Mandrake edition of their JDK.
>
> It would not Be mandrake only.
>
> If you look
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:56:51 +0100
Tom Badran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While we are discussing Java, is there a reason the sun JDK is not
> already included with mandrake? I know it isnt open source, but
> netscape 4 was (still is?) included.
Netscape is not now included.
It is Availabl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 13 Jun 2002 9:01 pm, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach Tom Badran am 2002-06-13 um 08:56:51 +0100 :
> > While we are discussing Java, is there a reason the sun JDK is not
> > already included with mandrake? I know it isnt open source, but
So sprach Tom Badran am 2002-06-13 um 08:56:51 +0100 :
> While we are discussing Java, is there a reason the sun JDK is not already
> included with mandrake? I know it isnt open source, but netscape 4 was (still
> is?) included.
That's the reason - Mandrake cannot include in the GPL version of
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:15:19 +0200
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> However, I somehow do not think that Sun will release a special
> gcc-3.1 Mandrake edition of their JDK.
It would not Be mandrake only.
If you look at the main component structure for UnitedLinux you will
f
Hi.
Yes, I know, this has been beaten to death. Suns JDK won't work with a
gcc-3.1 compiled Mozilla.
However, I somehow do not think that Sun will release a special gcc-3.1
Mandrake edition of their JDK. If all the distributions, and mainly
also the market leader Red Hat, would switch to gcc-3
Alexander Skwar wrote:
> You can include the Java implementation for NS6 in Mozilla. Works fine, but
> takes ages to start up - it's even worse than the start up time for Java in
> NS 4.x.
...which is already disgraceful...
--
I bought a new computer;
it came fully loaded.
The warranty was for
33 matches
Mail list logo
