Your message dated Fri, 7 May 2010 18:44:41 +0200 (CEST)
with message-id <20100507164441.99c7b6...@getsu.thykier.net>
and subject line Package java-gcj-compat has been removed from Debian
has caused the Debian Bug report #477207,
regarding javac fails when run on an i386 Debian with amd64
Your message dated Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:47:51 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#536102: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20091010-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #536102,
regarding gcc-snapshot: Package does not provide javac symlink
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 07.07.2009 18:08, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>
>> Package: gcc-snapshot
>> Version: 20090620-1
>> Severity: normal
>>
>>
>> It would be nice if the package would provide a proper javac symlink
On 07.07.2009 18:08, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20090620-1
Severity: normal
It would be nice if the package would provide a proper javac symlink just like
gcj package is doing.
See bug #528084 for reference.
I don't think that binaries from gcc-snapshot s
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20090620-1
Severity: normal
It would be nice if the package would provide a proper javac symlink just like
gcj package is doing.
See bug #528084 for reference.
Thank you
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.2
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Comparison of `strace's for i386 and amd64 Debian has revealed the
> following suspicious syscall run on i386 Debian:
> access("/usr/lib32/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-4.1-1.4.2.0/jre", F_OK) = -1 ENO
Package: java-gcj-compat-dev
Version: 1.0.65-10
javac fails when run on an i386 Debian if the kernel is compiled
for amd64:
$ /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/javac obj/Test.java
--
1. ERROR in obj/Test.java (at line 1)
/* #line 22113 "configure" */
splay the string.
}
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp# javac hello.java
--
1. ERROR in hello.java
(at line 1)
class HelloWorldApp {
^
The type java.lang.Object cannot be resolved. It is indirectly referenced from
required .class files
--
1 problem (1 error)
[EMAIL
acking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ecj-bootstrap
Severity: normal
Hi,
I'm not sure if this belongs to ecj-bootstrap, feel free to reassign if
I'm wrong. Here is the problem:
db4.2 (4.2.52-24):
checking if /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj
Your message dated Tue, 16 May 2006 07:32:20 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Can't build with javac
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it
Your message dated Tue, 16 May 2006 07:21:25 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line ecj-bootstrap: takes over /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/javac with
../../../../bin/ecj
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
acking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: java-gcj-compat-dev
Version: 1.0.51-1
Severity: normal
$ /usr/bin/javac
bash: /usr/bin/javac: Too many levels of symbolic links
So let's see:
/usr/bin/javac -> /etc/alternatives/javac
/et
tag 361608 pending confirmed
thanks
Hello,
this was a bug in java-gcj-compat and got fixed in version
1.0.52-0ubuntu1. I will soon (on monday) upload 1.0.55 to unstable which
fixes this too.
Thanks for reporting this.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gn
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 361608 pending confirmed
Bug#361608: ecj-bootstrap: takes over /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/javac with
../../../../bin/ecj
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending, confirmed
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if yo
Arnaud Vandyck writes:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Arnaud Vandyck writes:
> >>I confirm this bug. autotools can't find javac! This is impossible to
> >>build packages that use java-gcj-compat-dev.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthias Klose wrote:
> wait, and where does ecj point to? do you have ecj-bootstrap-gcj
> installed?
/usr/bin/ecj -> /etc/alternatives/ecj
/etc/alternatives/ecj -> /usr/bin/ecj-bootstrap-gcj
$ /usr/bin/ecj-bootstrap-gcj Hello.java
- --
1. ER
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck writes:
>>I confirm this bug. autotools can't find javac! This is impossible to
>>build packages that use java-gcj-compat-dev.
>
> where does javac point to?
ecj. You are right, the b
Arnaud Vandyck writes:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> I confirm this bug. autotools can't find javac! This is impossible to
> build packages that use java-gcj-compat-dev.
where does javac point to?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I confirm this bug. autotools can't find javac! This is impossible to
build packages that use java-gcj-compat-dev.
Cheers,
- --
.''`.
: :' :rnaud
`. `'
`-
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java
Package: java-gcj-compat-dev
Severity: important
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp# cat hello.java
class HelloWorldApp {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World!"); //Display the string.
}
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp# javac hello.java
--
1
Package: java-gcj-compat-dev
Version: 1.0.51-1
Severity: normal
$ /usr/bin/javac
bash: /usr/bin/javac: Too many levels of symbolic links
So let's see:
/usr/bin/javac -> /etc/alternatives/javac
/etc/alternatives/javac -> /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/javac
/usr/lib/jvm/java-gc
Package: gcj-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.3-0pre9
Severity: important
I have the following program:
/**
* @author Jens M%/1iso8859-15üller
*
*/
/*
* Created on 05.05.2003
*
*/
/**
* @author Jens M%/1iso8859-15üller
*
*/
public class PiApproximationRecursive {
/**
* This variable
Your message dated Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:50:14 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line gcj-3.2 provides javac wrapper
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is no
Your message dated Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:50:14 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line gcj-3.2 provides javac wrapper
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is no
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 148686 wishlist
Bug#148686: gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> reassign 148686 gcj
Bug#148686: gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
Bug reassigned from package `gcj-3.1' to
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:02:18AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Michael Koch writes:
> > > Package: gcj-3.1
> > > Version: 1:3.1-2
> > > Severity: normal
> > >
> > >
> > > gcj-3.1 should provide /etc
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:02:18AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Michael Koch writes:
> > Package: gcj-3.1
> > Version: 1:3.1-2
> > Severity: normal
> >
> >
> > gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
>
> yes, but only if gcj supports m
Michael Koch writes:
> Package: gcj-3.1
> Version: 1:3.1-2
> Severity: normal
>
>
> gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
yes, but only if gcj supports most of javac's options. Please feel
free to submit a gcj-wrapper, which can be used as an javac
alterna
Package: gcj-3.1
Version: 1:3.1-2
Severity: normal
gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux asterix 2.4.18-k7 #1 Sun Apr 14 13:19:11 EST 2002 i686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ignored: LC_ALL set
Package: gcj-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-7
Severity: normal
As a package providing java-compiler, gcj-3.0 should offer a
javac-compatible wrapper and register it with the alternatives system.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Kernel Version: Linux hoss 2.4.18-int-hoss #1 Wed Apr 3 22:37:01 CEST
Santiago Vila writes:
> On 5 Feb 2002, Stephen Zander wrote:
>
> > > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Santiago> What about the other java compilers? It is true, for
> > Santiago> example, that for each architecture that will be
> > Santiago> released in w
On 5 Feb 2002, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Santiago> What about the other java compilers? It is true, for
> Santiago> example, that for each architecture that will be
> Santiago> released in woody there is at least some java c
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> What about the other java compilers? It is true, for
Santiago> example, that for each architecture that will be
Santiago> released in woody there is at least some java compiler
Santiago> that works?
Nope. Sorr
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 15:27, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > For example, would "Build-Depends: gcj" be acceptable?
> >
> > gcj only works on i386, powerpc, m68k, sparc, s390, alpha and ia64.
>
> Hmm, do you mean it does not work on arm, hppa, mips and mipsel?
> Is this considered a release-critical bu
> > For example, would "Build-Depends: gcj" be acceptable?
>
> gcj only works on i386, powerpc, m68k, sparc, s390, alpha and ia64.
Hmm, do you mean it does not work on arm, hppa, mips and mipsel?
Is this considered a release-critical bug?
What about the other java compilers? It is true, for examp
Santiago Vila writes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Santiago Vila writes:
> > > Is there any particular reason why gcj does not set up a symlink
> > > javac -> gcj using the alternatives mechanism, as jikes used to do before
> > > Bug #43730 was reported
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes:
> > Is there any particular reason why gcj does not set up a symlink
> > javac -> gcj using the alternatives mechanism, as jikes used to do before
> > Bug #43730 was reported?
>
> an alternative should only be provided,
Santiago Vila writes:
> Is there any particular reason why gcj does not set up a symlink
> javac -> gcj using the alternatives mechanism, as jikes used to do before
> Bug #43730 was reported?
an alternative should only be provided, if a reasonable set of options
match. Unfortunately
Hello.
Is there any particular reason why gcj does not set up a symlink
javac -> gcj using the alternatives mechanism, as jikes used to do before
Bug #43730 was reported?
( The new gettext-0.11 checks for a java compiler named "javac" but it
does not find "gcj". I&#x
39 matches
Mail list logo
