Bug#687694: Close?

2013-09-08 Thread Niels Thykier
On 2013-09-08 01:35, gregor herrmann wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:44:12 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Is this the right syntax for the break clause: Breaks: jakarta-jmeter ( 2.8-1), jenkins-instance-identity ( 1.3-1), jglobus ( 2.0.6-1), libitext-java ( 2.1.7-6),

Bug#687694: Close?

2013-09-08 Thread gregor herrmann
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 08:31:45 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: The former, i.e. X; it should break everything less than the first fixed version of those packages, since there are broken (pun intended). Actually, (being a bit pedantic) you should use X~, so backports cannot satisfy the

Bug#687694: Close?

2013-09-07 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Is this the right syntax for the break clause: Breaks: jakarta-jmeter ( 2.8-1), jenkins-instance-identity ( 1.3-1), jglobus ( 2.0.6-1), libitext-java ( 2.1.7-6), libpdfbox-java ( 1:1.8.2+dfsg-1), voms-api-java ( 2.0.9-1.1) I listed only the package that

Bug#687694: Close?

2013-09-07 Thread gregor herrmann
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:44:12 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Is this the right syntax for the break clause: Breaks: jakarta-jmeter ( 2.8-1), jenkins-instance-identity ( 1.3-1), jglobus ( 2.0.6-1), libitext-java ( 2.1.7-6), libpdfbox-java ( 1:1.8.2+dfsg-1),

Bug#687694: Close?

2013-09-05 Thread Mattias Ellert
Isn't it time to close this now? Mattias signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for

Bug#687694: Close?

2013-09-05 Thread Niels Thykier
On 2013-09-05 10:03, Mattias Ellert wrote: Isn't it time to close this now? Mattias Does bouncycastle now force packages the affected reverse dependencies to be upgraded with it? If not, it will still break partial upgrades. ~Niels __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's

Bug#687694: Close?

2013-09-05 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 05/09/2013 10:19, Niels Thykier a écrit : Does bouncycastle now force packages the affected reverse dependencies to be upgraded with it? If not, it will still break partial upgrades. All of the reverse dependencies that were updated in this transition have the correct versionned dependency

Bug#687694: Close?

2013-09-05 Thread Niels Thykier
On 2013-09-05 11:01, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 05/09/2013 10:19, Niels Thykier a écrit : Does bouncycastle now force packages the affected reverse dependencies to be upgraded with it? If not, it will still break partial upgrades. All of the reverse dependencies that were updated in this