Jpackage
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
 
Advanced search
MATCHING GROUPS



more...
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

found 26 articles for 0.303 sec
Paul Thompson wrote: >> The java I use is one of the three supplied on the dvd. >> I note you did not mention that you have installed the openjdk-plugin. >> This is a must with 64 bit firefox. It's worth noting here that >> konqueror worked without any plugin in openSuse 10.3 so I presume it >> uses a work around. >> The other point is that with firefox java is disabled by default. > >     

Group: alt.os.linux.suse · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in alt.os.linux.suse
Author: Blattus Slafaly
Date: Aug 6, 2008 08:37

> The java I use is one of the three supplied on the dvd. I note you did not mention that you have installed the openjdk-plugin. This is a must with 64 bit firefox. It's worth noting here that konqueror worked without any plugin in openSuse 10.3 so I presume it uses a work around. The other point is that with firefox java is disabled by default. When I try to install openjdk-plugin
Show full article (3.48Kb) · Show article thread
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:55:30 +0000, Jan Wielemaker typed this message: > On 2008-07-17, noi ance <noi@siam.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:59:28 +0000, Jan Wielemaker typed this message: >> >>> On 2008-07-16, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote: >>>> Jan Wielemaker wrote: >>>>> I need to build a 32-bit binary of a package that links against JVM >>>>> on what is otherwise a 64-bit     

Group: alt.os.linux.suse · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in alt.os.linux.suse
Author: Paul Thompson
Date: Aug 6, 2008 08:21

On 2008-07-17, noi ance <noi@siam.com> wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:59:28 +0000, Jan Wielemaker typed this message: On 2008-07-16, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote: Jan Wielemaker wrote: I need to build a 32-bit binary of a package that links against JVM on what is otherwise a 64-bit install of SuSE 11.0. For all other required libraries there are 32-bit
Show full article (3.25Kb) · Show article thread
[H]omer <spam@uce.gov> espoused: > JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2008-03-22, [H]omer <spam@uce.gov> wrote: > >>> I don't have a strong opinion on this, but IMHO /opt should be >>> depreciated in favour of /usr/local, since the two seem to serve >>> the same purpose. Certainly I've never personally needed /opt for >>> any good reason. >> >> I dunno. I think that there should be more distinctions     

Group: alt.os.linux.suse · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in alt.os.linux.suse
Author: noi ance
Date: Jul 18, 2008 00:42

[H]omer <spam@uce.gov> espoused: JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2008-03-22, [H]omer <spam@uce.gov> wrote: I don't have a strong opinion on this, but IMHO /opt should be depreciated in favour of /usr/local, since the two seem to serve the same purpose. Certainly I've never personally needed /opt for any good reason. I dunno. I think that there should be more distinctions
Show full article (3.79Kb) · Show article thread
JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2008-03-22, [H]omer <spam@uce.gov> wrote: >> I don't have a strong opinion on this, but IMHO /opt should be >> depreciated in favour of /usr/local, since the two seem to serve >> the same purpose. Certainly I've never personally needed /opt for >> any good reason. > > I dunno. I think that there should be more distinctions made within > vendor/distro supplied packages     

Group: alt.os.linux.suse · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in alt.os.linux.suse
Author: Jan Wielemaker
Date: Jul 17, 2008 02:55

JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2008-03-22, [H]omer <spam@uce.gov> wrote: I don't have a strong opinion on this, but IMHO /opt should be depreciated in favour of /usr/local, since the two seem to serve the same purpose. Certainly I've never personally needed /opt for any good reason. I dunno. I think that there should be more distinctions made within vendor/distro supplied packages
Show full article (3.04Kb) · Show article thread
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:18:39 +0000, Highland Ham wrote: > > I had another go at the easyurpmi.zarb.org site and definitely selected > 2005 community. > > urpmi.addmedia main > ftp://ftp.uni-wuppertal.de/pub/linux/Mandrivalinux/devel/2005/i586/media/main > with media_info/hdlist.cz Oh, yuck, /devel/2005/ why have devel. use /official/200 There might be development junk left which never     

Group: comp.os.linux.misc · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in comp.os.linux.misc
Author: Mark Kent
Date: Mar 29, 2008 16:27

Bit Twister wrote: On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:09:13 +0000, Highland Ham wrote: I wish to keep 2005LE for some time yet before installing a new version on an old 866 MHz P3 laptop Using the 3 CDs I have done the following : In easyurpmi.zarb.org selected all options for 2005 Community Sure you did, NOT. It did this a few times and each time output was
Show full article (2.11Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: comp.os.linux.advocacy · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Author: Mark Kent
Date: Mar 29, 2008 16:27

Show full article (2.11Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: comp.os.linux.misc · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in comp.os.linux.misc
Author: [H]omer
Date: Mar 25, 2008 11:17

Show full article (1.73Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: comp.os.linux.advocacy · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Author: [H]omer
Date: Mar 25, 2008 11:17

Show full article (1.73Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.os.linux.mandriva · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in alt.os.linux.mandriva
Author: Bit Twister
Date: Nov 22, 2007 15:44

Show full article (2.40Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.os.linux.mandriva · Group Profile · Search for Jpackage in alt.os.linux.mandriva
Author: Highland Ham
Date: Nov 22, 2007 15:18

Show full article (23.76Kb) · Show article thread
1 · 2 · 3 · next