Hi,
> IMO, separated package is unfriendly for user
Not in this case. Separating the packages means that the user does not have
to rebuild the SDK/JRE package, but only hat to "apt-get update" the
companion package.
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
From: Hubert Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ANN] New version of j2se-package (formerly mpkg-j2sdk)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:53:00 +0100 (CET)
> [alternate name for "j2se-package"]
> > Maybe most of people like mpkg-xx name. I suggest 'mpkg-j2se'. It&#
Hallo T.,
* T. Alexander Popiel wrote:
>J2SE stands for Java2 Standard Edition in Sun-speak. Similarly,
>J2EE is Java2 Enterprise Edition, including a bunch of extra
>libraries useful for running an app server. In the mpkg-j2se
>context, it's presumably referring to the distribution that's
>gett
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hallo Hubert,
>
>* Hubert Schmid wrote:
>>the package also be called 'mpkg-j2se'?
>
>BTW: what does "2se stand for?"
J2SE stands for Java2 Standard Edition in Sun-speak. Similarly,
J2EE is Java2 Enterprise Edit
Because the FTP admins abviously don't want to have a lot of small
packages when these small scripts/binaries with the same target users
can easily be put into a single package (that's also my opinion).
Yes, but I don't see what existing package could hold this script.
java-common certainly bel
Daniel Bonniot wrote:
And why do you think that? The cases look quite different to me.
Because the FTP admins abviously don't want to have a lot of small
packages when these small scripts/binaries with the same target users
can easily be put into a single package (that's also my opinion). But
w
Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't disagree but I think the FTP admins will reject the package
> after reading the "ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected
> a few days ago" thread in -devel, especially
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00
I don't disagree but I think the FTP admins will reject the package
after reading the "ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected
a few days ago" thread in -devel, especially
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00766.html.
And why do you think that? The ca
Takashi Okamoto wrote:
I would like to upload j2se-package Nov 11. If you disagree, please
tell me.
I don't disagree but I think the FTP admins will reject the package
after reading the "ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a
few days ago" thread in -devel, especially
http://lists
Hallo Hubert,
* Hubert Schmid wrote:
>the package also be called 'mpkg-j2se'?
BTW: what does "2se stand for?"
>Another question: Jan proposed (in private mail) to rename the created
>package "sun-j2sdk1.4" into "sun-j2sdk1.4upstream" (or something similar)
>and to rename the peer package from "
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
[alternate name for "j2se-package"]
> Maybe most of people like mpkg-xx name. I suggest 'mpkg-j2se'. It's
> more intuitive.
Okay. I'm overruled. The script will be renamed into 'mpkg-j2se'. Should
the package also be called 'mpkg-j2se'?
Another questio
Hallo Takashi,
* Takashi Okamoto wrote:
>Maybe most of people like mpkg-xx name. I suggest 'mpkg-j2se'. It's
>more intuitive.
No idea, if people like it, but I do :) I would even go further to a
mpkg-java script.
Jan
--
Jan Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Wer nicht fragt, ble
From: Jan Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ANN] New version of j2se-package (formerly mpkg-j2sdk)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:29:55 +0100
> * Hubert Schmid wrote:
> >I don't insist on this name. Are there any further packages in Debian
> >(except kernel-package)
Hallo Hubert,
* Hubert Schmid wrote:
>I don't insist on this name. Are there any further packages in Debian
>(except kernel-package) that build Debian packages? If someone has a good
>name for the package and/or the executable shell script, then I will
>rename the package.
I don't know of any mor
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
> There are some discussion about j2se-package:
>
> (2)Name
> There are discussion about naming. But I respect upstream decision,
> Hubert.
I don't insist on this name. Are there any further packages in Debian
(except kernel-package) that build Debian pa
Sorry not sooner reply,
There are some discussion about j2se-package:
(1)Is j2se-package main?
j2se-package is for non-free JVM currently and it should be
contrib this time. Stefan told about alien however alien is used for
general purpose. If j2se-package support opensource JVM
which is distribu
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:31:44AM +0100, Hubert Schmid wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Schulz wrote:
> > nitpick: I find the mpkg-* idea better :) What about mpkg-java or
> > mpkg-j2se? At least it make sit clear that a package is created.
>
> I will think about this. But at least, the package
It is trivial to compile and install du from the coreutils/testing source
package and manually install just the du binary in /usr/local/bin/ so a
"proper" fix for woody is not worth it.
I tried to rewrite the diskusage() function using various other
combinations of commands but it never gave the s
j2se-package_0.2 from http://www.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de/~ude2/debian/
in /usr/lib/j2se-package/common.sh
in function diskusage()
uses command "du -sm --apparent-size"
The du command from woody (debian 3.0) does not recognise --apparent-size.
It would be nice if this could be fixed so it works for
Hallo Hubert,
* Hubert Schmid wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Schulz wrote:
>> * Hubert Schmid wrote:
>> nitpick: I find the mpkg-* idea better :) What about mpkg-java or
>> mpkg-j2se? At least it make sit clear that a package is created.
>I will think about this. But at least, the package and th
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
> J2SDK1.3 is used for server purpose by a lot of user. I'll sponsor
> your pacakge after supporting Sun's j2sdk1.3.
I've just uploaded a new version that supports j2re1.3, j2sdk1.3, j2re1.4
and j2sdk1.4 from Sun.
> BTW, kernel-package use 'make-kpkg'
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Schulz wrote:
> * Hubert Schmid wrote:
> >j2se-package creates a (binary) Debian package from an upstream binary
> >Java(TM) 2 SDK or RE distribution, in order to easily install the
> >non-free Java VMs on Debian machines.
>
> nitpick: I find the mpkg-* idea better :) What
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 13:30, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Jan Schulz wrote:
>
> > Installer depend on unfree software and therefor at least must go into
> > contrib. There was some discussion, whether they should altogether go
> > to non-free. See debian-devel for that.
>
> That't true for packages that
Jan Schulz wrote:
Installer depend on unfree software and therefor at least must go into
contrib. There was some discussion, whether they should altogether go
to non-free. See debian-devel for that.
That't true for packages that only consist of an installer. However, I
don't see a reason in Polic
Hallo J.,
* J. R. Westmoreland wrote:
>I thought that I understood that the package itself was not FREE not
>that the software to make the package was not FREE? E.g., the j2sdk is
>NOT FREE but the software that creates the package IS FREE. Therefore,
>one could include the script in java-common a
Hallo J.,
* J. R. Westmoreland wrote:
>It would also be nice if the script could handle j2ee as well as j2sdk
>or j2re.
It shoulkd be quite easy to implement that: It needs a script which
'knows' the downlaod files and installs it into a tmp location. It
also needs a package, which sets up the 'd
It would also be nice if the script could handle j2ee as well as j2sdk or j2re.
J. R. Westmoreland
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 11:57:12PM +0100, Hubert Schmid wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a long time ago, I promised to rework my package mpkg-j2sdk in two weeks.
> I didn't accomplish this in two weeks, but now
I thought that I understood that the package itself was not FREE not that the software
to make the package was not FREE?
E.g., the j2sdk is NOT FREE but the software that creates the package IS FREE.
Therefore, one could include the script in java-common and ALL parts of the
java-common are FREE.
W liście z pon, 27-10-2003, godz. 11:03, Stefan Gybas pisze:
> Takashi Okamoto wrote:
>
> > J2SDK1.3 is used for server purpose by a lot of user. I'll sponsor
> > your pacakge after supporting Sun's j2sdk1.3.
>
> What do you think of including it into java-common (together with other
> useful J
Hallo Hubert,
* Hubert Schmid wrote:
>j2se-package creates a (binary) Debian package from an upstream binary
>Java(TM) 2 SDK or RE distribution, in order to easily install the
>non-free Java VMs on Debian machines.
nitpick: I find the mpkg-* idea better :) What about mpkg-java or
mpkg-j2se? At le
Takashi Okamoto wrote:
J2SDK1.3 is used for server purpose by a lot of user. I'll sponsor
your pacakge after supporting Sun's j2sdk1.3.
What do you think of including it into java-common (together with other
useful Java-related scripts)?
Stefan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Hi Hubert,
From: Hubert Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ANN] New version of j2se-package (formerly mpkg-j2sdk)
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:57:12 +0100 (CET)
> a long time ago, I promised to rework my package mpkg-j2sdk in two weeks.
> I didn't accomplish this in two weeks, b
Hi,
a long time ago, I promised to rework my package mpkg-j2sdk in two weeks.
I didn't accomplish this in two weeks, but now there is a new version and
I renamed the package into "j2se-package".
j2se-package creates a (binary) Debian package from an upstream binary
Java(TM) 2 SDK or RE distributi
33 matches
Mail list logo
