Re: Eclipse 3 packaging
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michael Koch wrote:
[...]
| Yeah, basing on GCJ 4.0 and providing native Eclipse by default looks
| like a very goode idea. As this means we need to compile java to
| bytecode/jars first with well get support for non-native runtimes for
| free. I'm willing to invest my time test it with most available free
| VMs. Non-free VMs can and should be supported too but they should not be
| top priority.
Sounds great to me.
|>>III. Choosing An Initial Source Version
|>>~ There has been some talk about this on IRC #debian-java of late, and
|>>the consensus seems to be that going with 3.1 as an initial version is a
|>>good idea. I personally endorse this, as I assisted on a bug report
|>>with Eclipse[3] that enables a successful build on PowerPC Linux with
|>>GTK. Prior to the 3.1 development stream, this build was very broken.
|>>Starting with anything prior to 3.1 will require us to fix/patch quite a
|>>bit of stuff that has been remediated in the 3.1 stream.
|>
|>That's fine with me. I missed my goal for Ubuntu Hoary, which was my
|>main reason for wanting a stable release anyways. I assume 3.1 will be
|>released before next October. =)
|
|
| I really hope that we have a mostly stable Eclipse packaged some time
| before that date.
I run Eclipse 3.1 from the integration snapshots with several free and
one commercial plug-in without issue. I am sure we'll have something
pretty solid, and us free java folks are all too familiar/comfortable
with packaging/running from CVS snapshots. ;-)
- --
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.alltc.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
Registered Linux User #368650
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLLOk7bZ6kUftWZwRAtUzAJ4vlIFdpQBaOBKDY+R5bPT9YtgJLgCfRmBK
1UFWPDbwC1LGLz1EAXpbTeo=
=lOIf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: