Matthew Johnson wrote:
I have a package which compiles in the sid java-gcj-compat-dev, but only
runs with sun java (or, I assume, IBM, but since IBM isn't in the
archive, I don't think it's all that important to cater for). I've filed
bugs against gcj, which have been fixed upstream, and it
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 09:47:41AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
Matthew Johnson wrote:
I have a package which compiles in the sid java-gcj-compat-dev, but only
runs with sun java (or, I assume, IBM, but since IBM isn't in the
archive, I don't think it's all that important to cater for). I've
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Haley wrote:
I guess it depends on whether the program fails because a particular
runtime has bugs or because the program depends on something it shouldn't
use, such as com.sun.* classes. We're pretty complete with respect to 1.4,
so I'd like to know what this problem
Hi everybody,
thanks for your answers, it looks like we don't have yet a consensus.
Let me try to suggest one.
POINT 1:
I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
- the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are the ones
tested by the packager, and for which
Eric Lavarde writes:
Hi everybody,
thanks for your answers, it looks like we don't have yet a consensus.
Let me try to suggest one.
POINT 1:
I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
- the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are the ones
tested by
I've been lurking on this thread up until now, but wanted to chime in to say
that I agree with Matthew's point:
If something _does not work at all_ with the free VMs I don't think it
should depend on java2-runtime.
Whether or not a package works with a free VM is an issue for the maintainer
On Tue Jan 29 17:45, Eric Lavarde wrote:
POINT 1:
I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
- the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime are the ones
tested by the packager, and for which he's ready to stand up and make it
work (the supported runtimes).
-
Hi,
Matthias Klose wrote:
Eric Lavarde writes:
Hi everybody,
thanks for your answers, it looks like we don't have yet a consensus.
Let me try to suggest one.
POINT 1:
I would suggest to modify the Java Policy along these lines:
- the specific java runtimes listed before java(2)-runtime
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:08:45AM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
Hi
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 04:11, Matthew Johnson wrote:
[snip a lot of good stuff I agree with]
A much better solution would be to define a better set of virtual
packages. I would go with:
- lowest common
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 09:47:53PM +0100, Eric Lavarde wrote:
no.
OK, Why no and why is Recommends sufficient? If I may interpret your
answer, it's because you don't want to pull X-stuff when you only want
to have a Java runtime for your server.
In this case, the proposal from Andrew
Hi
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 04:11, Matthew Johnson wrote:
[snip a lot of good stuff I agree with]
A much better solution would be to define a better set of virtual
packages. I would go with:
- lowest common denominator (essentially the _intersection_ of Java
1.4 and whatever
Andrew Vaughan writes:
If you are going to rework the virtual packages, please consider adding
-nox packages so that java{,5}-runtime can depend the appropriate X windows
packages, and server apps that don't need X windows can depend on
java{,5}-runtime-nox.
see java-gcj-compat-headless,
On Jan 29, 2008 5:18 PM, Eric Lavarde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can log a bug along these lines if you want but someone will have to
dig into it, because, without error message, I don't know where to start.
You could start by updating this page:
13 matches
Mail list logo
