* Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 11:34]:
> On Tue Oct 28 11:15, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > * Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 11:15]:
> > > I'm also still convinced we need to mandate the use of Class-Path:
> > > entries in manifests to avoid transitions in rdeps whe
On Tue Oct 28 11:15, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> * Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 11:15]:
> > I'm also still convinced we need to mandate the use of Class-Path:
> > entries in manifests to avoid transitions in rdeps when you update
> > your dependencies.
>
> This goes against the Fed
* Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28 11:15]:
> I'm also still convinced we need to mandate the use of Class-Path:
> entries in manifests to avoid transitions in rdeps when you update
> your dependencies.
This goes against the Fedora and JPackage guidelines, FWIW.
Andrew
--
To UNSU
On Tue Oct 28 14:19, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make sense to "police" this? i.e. to state that all packages
> > should be explicitly compiled with 1.5 source/target unless they use 6's
> > features?
> It is a good idea. Some information are missing in the current Java
> Policy.
>
> A
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I filed bug reports for packages building with openjdk-6 or cacao-oj6,
> producing java bytecode for version 50, and which still depend on
> java-runtime5, or earlier (attached at the end).
Hmmm... Don't you f
Le mardi 28 octobre 2008 à 13:40 +0100, Eric Lavarde - Debian a écrit :
> Wouldn't it make sense to "police" this? i.e. to state that all packages
> should be explicitly compiled with 1.5 source/target unless they use 6's
> features?
It is a good idea. Some information are missing in the current J
Hi,
I thought, you need to set ant.build.javac.source _and_
ant.build.javac.target to be on the safe side (resp. -target and -source)?
Wouldn't it make sense to "police" this? i.e. to state that all packages
should be explicitly compiled with 1.5 source/target unless they use 6's
features?
Eric
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 10:03 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Mark Wielaard writes:
> > I thought all (free) runtimes accepted version 50 bytecode these days,
> > even if they say they implement only java-runtime5. Is this a problem in
> > practice? And if so against which runtimes? We might want to j
Mark Wielaard writes:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 09:25 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > I filed bug reports for packages building with openjdk-6 or cacao-oj6,
> > producing java bytecode for version 50, and which still depend on
> > java-runtime5, or earlier (attached at the end).
>
Hi Matthias,
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 09:25 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I filed bug reports for packages building with openjdk-6 or cacao-oj6,
> producing java bytecode for version 50, and which still depend on
> java-runtime5, or earlier (attached at the end).
>
> This package builds with o
I filed bug reports for packages building with openjdk-6 or cacao-oj6,
producing java bytecode for version 50, and which still depend on
java-runtime5, or earlier (attached at the end).
For lenny+1, when using openjdk/cacao as the default, there will be a
lot more of these mismatches (I fixed abou
11 matches
Mail list logo
