Re: Which JVM can I use?
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> I suggest you read the Developers Reference if you are interested how the
> Debian project works. The existence of packages in the distribution that
I hope this wasnt ment for me ;-)
> I don't recall ever seeing error messages about guavac depending on a JVM
> which doesn't exist, and I don't recall the slink-CD maintainer ever
> complaining about this either. guavac doesn't depend on anything but libc
> and libstdc++, so I guess that was OK. The error would be on part of the
> guavac maintainer.
guavac_1.0-5.deb:
new debian package, version 2.0.
size 662822 bytes: control archive= 995 bytes.
653 bytes, 16 lines control
812 bytes, 14 lines md5sums
Package: guavac
Version: 1.0-5
Architecture: m68k
Depends: libc6, libg++272 (>= 2.7.2.8)
Suggests: java-virtual-machine
^^^^^^^^^ I think he was talking about this one. Yes, he should read the
developers reference.
> I'd say we rely on the i386 guys testing the packages :-) and focus on
> building m68k packages. I count about 3 active m68k porters, and with the
> automatic build machine broken that's going to be hard enough (_without_
> running into trouble with packages not building out of the box).
I didnt want to make things worse than they are... probably we have more
than 1500 packages, I recall a number of 2500 somehow...
But I forgot Nick in my calculation, so I would say there are 6 porters, more
or less active.
Maybe there should be a weekly FAQ or so? Containing things like where to
find XF86Config and why not to change it. What to do when a user finds a
problem with a package, dependency or runtime problems. Why to read the
docs, etc, etc. Maybe somebody who has successfully set up debian/m68k wants
to write something like this? I dont think any of the 3 or maybe 6 porters
has the time to write something like this. And again, this requires no
programming skills. Sombody want to step forward? I guess the handfull of
porters would be able to spend a little time on double checking that the
contents is ok (I didnt check with the others though, hope they wont hurt me
too hard ;-)
> With the current glibc 2.1 situation, things will get _really_
> interesting.
Yup. And the current kullervo situation makes is _REALLY_ interesting :-(
Ciao,
Christian.
Reply to: