On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:54 AM, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
The simplest argument against it is: Its just not possible to use
the non-free runtime classlibraries with a free runtime. AFAIK, for
interaction between a runtime and the class library a VM interface is
needed. And thats not the same between th
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:13 AM, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
>
>> Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>>
>>> Package: java-package
>>> Version: 0.27
>>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>>
>>> I would be very interested in any arguments against making
>>> java-package enable this to happen. Thank you
On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:13 AM, Wolfgang Baer wrote:
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
Package: java-package
Version: 0.27
Severity: wishlist
I would be very interested in any arguments against making
java-package enable this to happen. Thank you.
The simplest argument against it is: Its just not po
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Package: java-package
> Version: 0.27
> Severity: wishlist
> I would be very interested in any arguments against making
> java-package enable this to happen. Thank you.
The simplest argument against it is: Its just not possible to use
the non-free runtime classlibrarie
Package: java-package
Version: 0.27
Severity: wishlist
Java is intended to be architecture-independent. This architecture
independence is achieved through architecture-dependent JREs and JDKs.
However, much of the contents of JRE and JDK packages created by
make-jpkg are architecture-independe
5 matches
Mail list logo