Re: javac

2002-02-08 Thread Matthias Klose
Santiago Vila writes: > On 5 Feb 2002, Stephen Zander wrote: > > > > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Santiago> What about the other java compilers? It is true, for > > Santiago> example, that for each architecture that will be > > Santiago> released in w

Re: javac

2002-02-05 Thread Santiago Vila
On 5 Feb 2002, Stephen Zander wrote: > > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Santiago> What about the other java compilers? It is true, for > Santiago> example, that for each architecture that will be > Santiago> released in woody there is at least some java c

Re: javac

2002-02-05 Thread Stephen Zander
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Santiago> What about the other java compilers? It is true, for Santiago> example, that for each architecture that will be Santiago> released in woody there is at least some java compiler Santiago> that works? Nope. Sorr

Re: javac

2002-02-04 Thread Phil Blundell
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 15:27, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > For example, would "Build-Depends: gcj" be acceptable? > > > > gcj only works on i386, powerpc, m68k, sparc, s390, alpha and ia64. > > Hmm, do you mean it does not work on arm, hppa, mips and mipsel? > Is this considered a release-critical bu

Re: javac

2002-02-04 Thread Santiago Vila
> > For example, would "Build-Depends: gcj" be acceptable? > > gcj only works on i386, powerpc, m68k, sparc, s390, alpha and ia64. Hmm, do you mean it does not work on arm, hppa, mips and mipsel? Is this considered a release-critical bug? What about the other java compilers? It is true, for examp

Re: javac

2002-02-03 Thread Matthias Klose
Santiago Vila writes: > Matthias Klose wrote: > > Santiago Vila writes: > > > Is there any particular reason why gcj does not set up a symlink > > > javac -> gcj using the alternatives mechanism, as jikes used to do before > > > Bug #43730 was reported? > > > > an alternative should only be provide

Re: javac

2002-02-03 Thread Santiago Vila
Matthias Klose wrote: > Santiago Vila writes: > > Is there any particular reason why gcj does not set up a symlink > > javac -> gcj using the alternatives mechanism, as jikes used to do before > > Bug #43730 was reported? > > an alternative should only be provided, if a reasonable set of options >

Re: javac

2002-02-03 Thread Matthias Klose
Santiago Vila writes: > Is there any particular reason why gcj does not set up a symlink > javac -> gcj using the alternatives mechanism, as jikes used to do before > Bug #43730 was reported? an alternative should only be provided, if a reasonable set of options match. Unfortunately the options fo