Your message dated Tue, 28 May 2019 21:41:47 +0200
with message-id <0ed4fdbe-9a11-425a-e168-06232b7d9...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#928185: unblock: openjdk-11/11.0.3+7-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #928185,
regarding unblock: openjdk-11/11.0.3+7-4
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
928185: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=928185
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock openjdk-11/11.0.3+7-4. That's the quarterly security update and
should be released with buster. No more updates planned until the next security
update in July.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Matthias, Emmanuel,
On Mon, 27 May 2019 16:05:44 +0200 Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Le 27/05/2019 à 15:46, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>
> > No. With the change of ownership of the upstream jdk11-updates project,
> > you see
> > that the patches applied to the Oracle builds and to the OpenJDK builds
> > differ,
> > and the OpenJDK maintainers need to track issues based on tags in the issue
> > tracker and backport these changes themself. The LibreOffice packages are
> > fixed, the gradle tests are not used. Other vendors also ship OpenJDK with
> > other vendor settings.
> >
> > This is a minor change, and we had far more disruptive updates in OpenJDK 11
> > itself like many late changes for documentation building.
>
> I've reviewed the use of the java.vendor property in Debian and the
> occurrences I've found are either not used (in disabled tests for
> example), without consequences (checking the IBM JVM only) or already
> broken (still checking "Sun" instead of "Oracle", such as
> apache-directory-server).
>
> It still has the potential to break applications outside of the set of
> packages we ship in Buster, but considering the insane amount of
> breaking changes between OpenJDK 8 and OpenJDK 11 that's really a minor
> detail, and developers are certainly ready to cope with that.
Thanks for this information, it was valuable.
I'm not happy with the current situation, but I'll let openjdk-11 go
into buster now.
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
