Additionally, I still question the wisdom of the shared JNI directory.
From what I understand, there are different versions of JNI and you
cannot count on the idea that all JNI libraries are simply going to work
with all VMs. It's not clear to me that different versions of JNI can
even
Additionally, I still question the wisdom of the shared JNI directory.
From what I understand, there are different versions of JNI and you
cannot count on the idea that all JNI libraries are simply going to work
with all VMs.
Further to my last email, I should add that this is not an issue
Additionally, I still question the wisdom of the shared JNI directory.
From what I understand, there are different versions of JNI and you
cannot count on the idea that all JNI libraries are simply going to work
with all VMs. It's not clear to me that different versions of JNI can
even
Additionally, I still question the wisdom of the shared JNI directory.
From what I understand, there are different versions of JNI and you
cannot count on the idea that all JNI libraries are simply going to work
with all VMs.
Further to my last email, I should add that this is not an issue
My apologies. We installed a new mail server and I was in a car wreck
shortly after so some configuration issues went unattended. I have built
packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well enough. I need
to verify that I can stop using pthreads. Under 1.0.7 I could not get
ant to spawn
Hi Ean,
My apologies. We installed a new mail server and I was in a car wreck
shortly after so some configuration issues went unattended. I have built
packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well enough. I need
to verify that I can stop using pthreads. Under 1.0.7 I could not get
ant
My apologies. We installed a new mail server and I was in a car wreck
shortly after so some configuration issues went unattended. I have built
packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well enough. I need
to verify that I can stop using pthreads. Under 1.0.7 I could not get
ant to spawn
Hi Ean,
My apologies. We installed a new mail server and I was in a car wreck
shortly after so some configuration issues went unattended. I have built
packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well enough. I need
to verify that I can stop using pthreads. Under 1.0.7 I could not get
ant to
On 15 Aug 2003 14:44:02 -0500
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have built packages for 1.1.1 for Intel and they seem to work well
enough.
Very good news! :-D
Sorry again for my absentee behavior.
You're welcome ;)
-- Arnaud Vandyck, STE fi, ULg
Formateur Cellule
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:04:30PM +0200, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
Could you give a link that details this point?
s/point/insanity/
--
- mdz
--
To
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 23:48:40 +1000
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, maybe this is short. On the other hand, one can take into
consideration that the last message of Ean about upgrading (at that
time it was to kaffe 1.1.0) was almost two month ago (see
#196867).
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:13:57 -0700
Per Bothner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
A phone call may be worthwhile.
Is it a joke?! :-|
Why should it be a joke? If you want to contact someone
and are having trouble contacting them by email, but
you have a phone number for
Ant will move to main as soon as a Kaffe 1.1 package is uploaded.
This is wonderful news.
Upload Kaffe 1.1 and you'll see faster results than rewriting Makefiles. :-)
Indeed. Although since maintainers have happily sat for a year on ant
build systems without writing a few makefiles, I'm
Per Bothner wrote:
Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I got an answer from Ean after a couple of minutes. He said that he
would package Kaffe 1.1 but he did not say when. As I've said, this was
about one month ago and I've not heard from him since then.
Stefan
--
To
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Salut Arnaud,
Bien le bonjour! ;)
thanks for making an updated package for kaffe. Did you manage to get in touch
with Ean?
Yes, I tried but a mailer daemon asked me to confirm (a
Stefan Gybas wrote:
Unfortunately, your packages don't work - at least on i386. Building
libant1.5-java with your Kaffe package fails. The Ant build process
calls itself during the build (and thus starts a JVM) but using
JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/kaffe does not compile and classes at all. The JVM
Doesn't a few days seem abnormally short notice for such a major NMU -
not a bugfix but an entire new upstream release?
Yes, maybe this is short. On the other hand, one can take into
consideration that the last message of Ean about upgrading (at that time
it was to kaffe 1.1.0) was almost two
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
A phone call may be worthwhile.
Is it a joke?! :-|
Why should it be a joke? If you want to contact someone
and are having trouble contacting them by email, but
you have a phone number for their place of business, then
a phone is a very practical tool.
--
--Per
Kaffe has RC bugs which are open for 3 months (not counting your bug
report about /usr/lib/jni) - all of them either include a patch or are
easy to fix. Kaffe has been removed from testing because of this and now
keeps other Java packages (like jikes, see #203054) from moving to testing.
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:34:20 -0700
Per Bothner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes
[...]
A phone call may be worthwhile.
Is it a joke?! :-|
-- Arnaud
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
--- Daniel Bonniot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The gij interpreter is quite advanced and for me works better than kaffe
in almost all cases where I've done a comparison. There is no reason
(in most cases) that an out-of-date kaffe should be a bottleneck for
packages progressing into main.
time would be better spent persuading the FSF and ASF to get together on their
licenses and make either the GPL ASL compatible or the other way round. who
kknows, maybe you won't waste the time and they get their ideals/egos out of
the way and work out a compromise.
I'm not following this stuff
And thus with a small amount of work I was able to adjust jython to use
Makefiles and as a result jython was able to ship with woody, even
though ant was not.
This put the decision in a new light. Yes, your goal being to get Jython
in woody, it made sense to work on that. Now that woody is
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
I've just repack kaffe-1.1.1 (apt-get source kaffe; and uupdate)
Thanks a lot! We really need to have Kaffe 1.1 packages soon.
Unfortunately, your packages don't work - at least on i386. Building
libant1.5-java with your Kaffe package fails. The Ant build process
calls
Stefan Gybas wrote:
The availability of the new upstream release was reported almost 2
months ago (with a list of bugs that are fixed by this upstream release)
and I've sent Ean another mail about a month ago. How much longer should
we wait?
Which email address are you using? [EMAIL
Daniel Bonniot wrote:
ant seems very close to getting into main (since kaffe 1.1 is known to
it), what about we focus on getting kaffe 1.1 and ant, and consequently
loads of other Java packages, into main for sarge?
Hey, in case you didn't notice: I've been focussing on this for the last
couple
--- Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the problem, and the reasons you cite are reasons for
wanting to NMU in the first place, not for doing a highly irregular new
upstream NMU right now. For such a significant change I'd allow Ean
ample time to respond (and perhaps this
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:43:33PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
Incidentally, several java packages could move from contrib into main if
the maintainers could simply take the time to write their own Makefiles
instead of relying on the default ant build system which is in contrib,
e.g., #163168.
You can see that I introduced some problems because I'm not familiar
with the package but as I am on holliday, I'm trying to help Debian the
more I can;)
Oh, I appreciate your work. I wasn't arguing against your packages - I
was arguing against the proposal to do a new upstream NMU for
--- Daniel Bonniot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
Could you give a link that details this point?
read the threads:
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
Could you give a link that details this point?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Dalibor Topic wrote:
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe). So it may not be what
debian wants/needs ;)
Since the GCJ VM/runtime is licensed under GPL+exception, this is not
a problem when using gij.
--
Ben Burton wrote:
Doesn't a few days seem abnormally short notice for such a major NMU -
not a bugfix but an entire new upstream release?
Kaffe has RC bugs which are open for 3 months (not counting your bug
report about /usr/lib/jni) - all of them either include a patch or are
easy to fix. Kaffe
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:43:33PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
Incidentally, several java packages could move from contrib into main if
the maintainers could simply take the time to write their own Makefiles
instead of relying on the default ant build system which is in contrib,
e.g., #163168.
But ... the FSF doesn't think that code licensed under a GPL incompatible
license can be allowed to run on a GPLd VM (i.e. kaffe).
Could you give a link that details this point?
Daniel
--- Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the problem, and the reasons you cite are reasons for
wanting to NMU in the first place, not for doing a highly irregular new
upstream NMU right now. For such a significant change I'd allow Ean
ample time to respond (and perhaps this
Would it not be better to work on getting the free JVMs to the point where
they can run ant? (or if ant can be adjusted to be more friendly to these
JVMs)
Sure, but that will take much longer and it's a task at which a random
java package maintainer would be far less effective. As the jython
And thus with a small amount of work I was able to adjust jython to use
Makefiles and as a result jython was able to ship with woody, even
though ant was not.
This put the decision in a new light. Yes, your goal being to get Jython
in woody, it made sense to work on that. Now that woody is
Stefan Gybas wrote:
The availability of the new upstream release was reported almost 2
months ago (with a list of bugs that are fixed by this upstream release)
and I've sent Ean another mail about a month ago. How much longer should
we wait?
Which email address are you using? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
A phone call may be worthwhile.
Is it a joke?! :-|
Why should it be a joke? If you want to contact someone
and are having trouble contacting them by email, but
you have a phone number for their place of business, then
a phone is a very practical tool.
--
--Per
40 matches
Mail list logo
