On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:27:18PM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> The biggest wrinkle is that "javac -h" _only_ generates a header file if
> there are native annotations, whereas "javah" would always generate a
> header file. This found some places where we didn't have native
> annotations even thoug
Am 2018-05-20 um 16:03 schrieb Stefan Sperling:
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 12:47:39PM +0200, Michael Osipov wrote:
On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
I think you should aim to proceed with your plan as it was.
If anyone has strong objections to this, they should be constructive and
try to
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 12:47:39PM +0200, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > > I think you should aim to proceed with your plan as it was.
> > > If anyone has strong objections to this, they should be constructive and
> > > try to provide an alternative soluti
On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
Your statement
We are using OS X 10.7.5 for building SVN binaries. This seems to work
with Java 1.8.
--
Best regards,
Thomas Singer
=
syntevo GmbH
https://www.syntevo.com
https://www.syntevo.com/blog
On 2018-05-18 9:46, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:40:35AM +0200, Thomas Sing
On 18.05.2018 14:40, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:36:06PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Els
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:36:06PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >>> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggest
On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
>>> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
>>> Y
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
> > minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
> > Your statement "please keep backward compatibili
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
> Your statement "please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs"
> could mean anything between "please leave every
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:40:35AM +0200, Thomas Singer wrote:
> Whatever you do, please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs. Reason
> is building on older OS X machines for most compatibility which do not allow
> latest JDKs.
>
> Thanks for considering.
Could you be more specific about w
Hi James,
Whatever you do, please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs.
Reason is building on older OS X machines for most compatibility which
do not allow latest JDKs.
Thanks for considering.
--
Best regards,
Thomas Singer
=
syntevo GmbH
https://www.syntevo.com
https://ww
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:12:29AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 06:44:13PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 23.12.2017 16:30, Andreas Stieger wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was made aware by our Java package maintainer of the fact that JDK 10
> > > is removing the javah t
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 04.05.2018 14:12, James McCoy wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 06:44:13PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> On 23.12.2017 16:30, Andreas Stieger wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I was made aware by our Java package maintainer of the fact tha
On 5/4/2018 2:49 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 04.05.2018 14:12, James McCoy wrote:
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 06:44:13PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 23.12.2017 16:30, Andreas Stieger wrote:
Hello,
I was made aware by our Java package maintainer of the fact that JDK 10
is removing the javah tool,
On 04.05.2018 14:12, James McCoy wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 06:44:13PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 23.12.2017 16:30, Andreas Stieger wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I was made aware by our Java package maintainer of the fact that JDK 10
>>> is removing the javah tool, after the deprecation fro
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 06:44:13PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 23.12.2017 16:30, Andreas Stieger wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was made aware by our Java package maintainer of the fact that JDK 10
> > is removing the javah tool, after the deprecation from JDK 8. Our javahl
> > stuff no longer bui
On 23.12.2017 16:30, Andreas Stieger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was made aware by our Java package maintainer of the fact that JDK 10
> is removing the javah tool, after the deprecation from JDK 8. Our javahl
> stuff no longer builds and apparently the functionality is in javac now.
>
> JEP 313: Remove
Hello,
I was made aware by our Java package maintainer of the fact that JDK 10
is removing the javah tool, after the deprecation from JDK 8. Our javahl
stuff no longer builds and apparently the functionality is in javac now.
JEP 313: Remove the Native-Header Generation Tool (javah)
http://openjdk
19 matches
Mail list logo
