On Mon Nov 10 10:51, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
That version uses javap -verbose, which is rather slow, other
suggestions welcome. It uses the following table:
highest version in the package = depends
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
That version uses javap -verbose, which is rather slow, other
suggestions welcome. It uses the following table:
highest version in the package = depends line
50 = java-runtime6
49 = java-runtime6 |
On Mon Nov 10 10:36, Matthew Johnson wrote:
This is really nice except that you have got the dependency names
wrong. They should be java6-runtime, java5-runtime, java2-runtime etc.
Oh, whoops, good catch, I'll rev the version in experimental tonight
with this
names correct in
On Tue Oct 28 09:25, 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).
(minor thread hijacking)
I've just uploaded a version of
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
That version uses javap -verbose, which is rather slow, other
suggestions welcome. It uses the following table:
highest version in the package = depends line
50 = java-runtime6
49 = java-runtime6 | java-runtime5
Hi,
peter green said:
It is preferred to build the bytecode so that it runs on older jvms.
This is done passing '-source 1.[45]' to javac (or for cdbs ant tasks
setting ANT_OPTS to -Dant.build.javac.source=1.[45].
are you sure, the javac manpage only states that option affects the
version the
It is preferred to build the bytecode so that it runs on older jvms.
This is done passing '-source 1.[45]' to javac (or for cdbs ant tasks
setting ANT_OPTS to -Dant.build.javac.source=1.[45].
are you sure, the javac manpage only states that option affects the
version the source is assumed to
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
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
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).
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 just
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
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 Java
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 find
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 few others
* 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 when you update
16 matches
Mail list logo
