On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 21:29, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> I did Cc: debian-legal to have a look at the license but I think it's
> completly non-free!
Not only non-free, but so bad we couldn't even put it in the non-free
section.
For example, way down in the third set of terms(!) it has a non-compete
_
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
W liście z sob, 17-01-2004, godz. 21:29, Arnaud Vandyck pisze:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm facing a serious problem with the ArgoUML debian package. The next
> generation of ArgoUML (current development 0.15 and next stable 0.16)
> will use the mdr library:
> http://mdr.netbeans.org/download/daily.html
>
W liście z sob, 17-01-2004, godz. 15:50, Adam Majer pisze:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 12:44:34AM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > while jikes has:
> >
> > Recommends: jikes-gij | jikes-kaffe | jikes-sun | jikes-classpath |
> >jikes-sablevm
> >
> > where jikes-sun is in the contrib sect
Hi all,
I'm facing a serious problem with the ArgoUML debian package. The next
generation of ArgoUML (current development 0.15 and next stable 0.16)
will use the mdr library:
http://mdr.netbeans.org/download/daily.html
Which is an implementation of the JMI from Sun.
As you can see in the web pag
Hi all,
First off: Juergen, thanks for the fast response!
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Eckhart [iso-8859-1] Guthöhrlein wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 07:56:30PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
[snip]
> > Alternatively you could upgrade to 1.4.2-rc1 (see
> > http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/java2
> > Thus the *absence* of java2-runtime in the depends list is
> > an indication that the package should work on most JVMs in
> > debian. I would however expect these packages to run under
> > java2 as well.
>
> In my understanding the absence of java2-runtime means that a package
> that (solel
> > * j2/1-runtime does not garantee anything *at runtime*, so it is
>
> Right. That's exaclty the reason why I'd like to see them removed for
> library packages. But I guess I have already told this... :)
And this is my core problem with your proposal. You want to remove
j2/1-runtime, but you
I asked at #debian-devel and was adviced to contact debian-release.
So this is mainly for debian-release to take a look at.
W liście z sob, 17-01-2004, godz. 06:38, Mark Howard pisze:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 12:44:34AM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > The problem is known, I pointed it o
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 12:44:34AM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> [*] This is completly irrelevant that jikes is currently held by
> Kaffe. Tomorrow it may be held by SableVM, and in a week by Classpath
> or GIJ.
Jikes only needs *any* version to be in testing. A given package has
to be re
Hi Colin,
Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:55:56PM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
What do the kaffe developers need to know about the build failures in
question? If we knew that, then perhaps a Debian developer with
relatively little specific experience of Java could gather the necessar
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:55:56PM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >For other platforms, we essentially need more developers native on those
> >platforms to look into the compiler warnings, and fix them (easy step
> >one, I guess), and try to fix the crashes (using a prebuilt
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 12:44:34AM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> The problem is known, I pointed it out here at least once. Jikes
> provides all these wrappers jikes-* for different JVMs. This makes the
> source package dependant on ALL these JVMs. The result is that if ANY
> [*] the
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 07:56:30PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> I was able to reproduce this with 1.4.1 now.
>
> The problem is that Java (pre-1.4.2) picks up the wrong zlib functions
> when something brings in libz before Java loads its libzip.
>
> You should be able to work-around the prob
> >I'm not asking for this dependency, but out of interest: what policy
> >violation?
> >
> >
> Section 7.2, the definition of Depends and Suggests:
Okay, I thought you had some other policy violation in mind beyond just
"depends is inappropriate here", which we both already agree it clearly is
15 matches
Mail list logo
