On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 09:49:01AM +1200, Vladimir Petko wrote: > Hi, > > Upgrading to 6.2 does not introduce any jtreg regressions in > openjdk-11 and -17.
Hi Vladimir, Thank you for your response. The upload is ready, but I want to check once more with the list whether there are any concerns. The build-dep on libtestng7-java in this upload will require introducing testng7 [1] to old-old-stable (buster) if we need the updated jtreg6 there. Also, I believe the patch you provided addresses of Debian #1036065 and #1036066 [2,3] too. Can you confirm? Thank you, tony [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/testng7 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036065 [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036066 > On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 7:06 AM tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 09:28:39AM +1200, Vladimir Petko wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The build.xml is not supported by the upstream, so I have updated the > > > patch to include rule changes to use the provided Makefile[1]. > > > > > > Changes: > > > * Use Makefile to build jtreg (LP: #2031041). > > > - Use --release option in Makefile compile options. > > > - d/p/*: drop build.xml patches. > > > - d/control: add libguice-java, zip. > > > > Hello Vladimir, hi Emmanuel: > > > > Vladimir, thank you for this patch (and others). I applied it to the > > current source repo and rebuild all of the build r-deps before I > > realized that the source repo contains 6.2+1 [1] (not 6.1+2), which > > hasn't been uploaded. > > > > Are there any considerations or concerns about going ahead with an > > upload of 6.2+1? As I said, I was able to build openjdk-11, -17, and > > -19 with that version. > > > > Thanks, > > tony > > > > [1] > > https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/jtreg/-/commit/18fe40fc470b04bc735b425bba250db61340fcb3
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature