Hi,
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:36 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
So basically the information in this article applies?
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7413
No. That's an old article and was written before gcj's Binary Compatible
ABI was implemented.
That was the first generation of
Andrew Overholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-22 14:51]:
From http://www.backports.org/~mkoch/unstable/ eclipse_3.1-10.diff.gz it
appears that first the (bootstrap) ecj compiler is built using gcj, then
the rest of eclipse is
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 04:10:16PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Andrew Overholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-22 14:51]:
From http://www.backports.org/~mkoch/unstable/ eclipse_3.1-10.diff.gz it
appears that first the
* Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-24 16:14]:
Andrew Overholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-22 14:51]:
From http://www.backports.org/~mkoch/unstable/ eclipse_3.1-10.diff.gz it
appears that first the (bootstrap) ecj
Thanks guys.
Sorry for remaining stale (Wait, does coffee get stale?) in my java
knowledge.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-22 14:51]:
From http://www.backports.org/~mkoch/unstable/ eclipse_3.1-10.diff.gz it
appears that first the (bootstrap) ecj compiler is built using gcj, then
the rest of eclipse is compiled with the natively compiled bootstrap ecj.
Ok. The natively
Yes. It's not necessary, though, afaik, simply depending on
java-virtual-machine/java2-runtime should do the trick as
well, as the non-free
VMs should provide that just like the free VMs.
Excelent. That is what i was wanting to know. :)
Long ago with the dreaded 'eclipse running illegally on
Joe Smith unknown_kev_cat at hotmail.com writes:
I'm not so certain about bycode-compiling
eclipse with gcj.
From
http://www.backports.org/~mkoch/unstable/
eclipse_3.1-10.diff.gz
it
appears that first the (bootstrap) ecj
compiler is built using gcj, then
the rest of eclipse is compiled
Joe Smith unknown_kev_cat at hotmail.com writes:
Off topic but just to throw this out, this would seem to be the best (in
terms of speed) theoretetical JVM:
This a a merged static and dynamic compilation system that gains speed in
echange for a (slight?) increase in processor usage,
Joe Smith unknown_kev_cat at hotmail.com writes:
I understand that. What I was saying is that it seemed odd that upstream had
not done this. It may be a wise dea to prod upstream and see if they will
update for 3.2. I doubt the breakage is too severe.
They may, but not this early in the
The new packages run on kaffe? (it sounds that way, If you used a
different
free jvm them just 's/kaffe/[name of other JVM]/' for the following
questions.)
Afaik, yes. And on gcj/gij. And surely on the various other up-to-date
free
runtimes in Debian, since they all use pretty much the
Michael Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 04:55:07PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Michael said:
The second option was done long ago, originally for Fedora.
It would be the best if Eclipse.org just moved up to tomcat5. The more
debian's eclipse
Michael said:
The second option was done long ago, originally for Fedora.
It would be the best if Eclipse.org just moved up to tomcat5. The more
debian's eclipse deviates from upsteam the more of a pain it is on both the
debian maintainer and on upstream.
Off topic but just to throw
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 04:55:07PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Michael said:
The second option was done long ago, originally for Fedora.
It would be the best if Eclipse.org just moved up to tomcat5. The more
debian's eclipse deviates from upsteam the more of a pain it is on both the
debian
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 01:03:33PM -0500, Billy Biggs wrote:
Shaun Jackman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
as we spoke some time ago you wanted to get your swt-gtk packages to
testing and then supersede them by the ones generate from the new
Eclispe 3.1 (3.1.1 in the meanwhile). My packages are
On 10.10.05 00:01:02, Michael Koch wrote:
We (my sponsor and I) will upload Eclipse to the contrib section for
now as it depends on lucene and tomcat5 which are still in contrib.
I'm curious: Why does Eclipse depend on tomcat5? At least the binaries
from eclipse.org don't need it.
Andreas
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 10.10.05 00:01:02, Michael Koch wrote:
We (my sponsor and I) will upload Eclipse to the contrib section for
now as it depends on lucene and tomcat5 which are still in contrib.
I'm curious: Why does Eclipse depend on
Andreas Pakulat ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On 10.10.05 00:01:02, Michael Koch wrote:
We (my sponsor and I) will upload Eclipse to the contrib section for
now as it depends on lucene and tomcat5 which are still in contrib.
I'm curious: Why does Eclipse depend on tomcat5? At least the binaries
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 09:41:51PM -0500, Billy Biggs wrote:
Andreas Pakulat ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On 10.10.05 00:01:02, Michael Koch wrote:
We (my sponsor and I) will upload Eclipse to the contrib section for
now as it depends on lucene and tomcat5 which are still in contrib.
I'm
2005/10/2, Michael Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello Shaun,
as we spoke some time ago you wanted to get your swt-gtk packages to
testing and then supersede them by the ones generate from the new
Eclispe 3.1 (3.1.1 in the meanwhile). My packages are ready and
gracefully work as a replacement to
20 matches
Mail list logo
