Bug#402165: [Xcb] Bug#402165: Workarounds for locking assertions in Sun Java 1.5 and 1.6
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 01:14:55PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2007 at 11:54:02 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> > * Josh Triplett:
> >
> > > Barring that, how about shipping an executable script
> > > /usr/share/doc/sun-java{5,6}-bin/unbreak-my-java ?
> >
> > The license does not allow for anything like that, I'm afraid.
> >
> We could ship that in libx11-6, then. *shrug*
If you want to do it in the packaging scripts, the problem becomes that
when someone installs java after libx11-6 the scripts won't run to make the
change. The user could re-install the package with dpkg -i, but that'd be
annoying. Maybe we could ship a script to make the change that the postinst
runs, and that the user could run manually if they need to?
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402165: [Xcb] Bug#402165: Workarounds for locking assertions in Sun Java 1.5 and 1.6
On 02/06/07, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Josh Triplett schrieb:
>> Would the Debian maintainers of sun-java5-bin and sun-java6-bin please
>> consider applying these workarounds to the packages, to avoid locking
>> assertion failures when libx11-6 with Xlib/XCB enters unstable?
>
> sorry, we are only allowed to distribute the unmodified package. I know that
> this is not the best situation.
How about running sed in the postinst?
Barring that, how about shipping an executable script
/usr/share/doc/sun-java{5,6}-bin/unbreak-my-java ?
I'd rather you didn't use:
sed -ie '/./' < ./some_fille
Whilst it's _probably_ going to work, in-place editing is still new
and non-portable. After all, it's only really doing:
sed -e '/./' < ./some_file > ./temp && mv ./temp ./some_file
-- Thomas Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402165: Workarounds for locking assertions in Sun Java 1.5 and 1.6
On Sat, Jun 2, 2007 at 11:54:02 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Josh Triplett:
>
> > Barring that, how about shipping an executable script
> > /usr/share/doc/sun-java{5,6}-bin/unbreak-my-java ?
>
> The license does not allow for anything like that, I'm afraid.
>
We could ship that in libx11-6, then. *shrug*
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#402165: Workarounds for locking assertions in Sun Java 1.5 and 1.6
* Josh Triplett:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Josh Triplett schrieb:
>>> Would the Debian maintainers of sun-java5-bin and sun-java6-bin please
>>> consider applying these workarounds to the packages, to avoid locking
>>> assertion failures when libx11-6 with Xlib/XCB enters unstable?
>>
>> sorry, we are only allowed to distribute the unmodified package. I know that
>> this is not the best situation.
>
> How about running sed in the postinst?
>
> Barring that, how about shipping an executable script
> /usr/share/doc/sun-java{5,6}-bin/unbreak-my-java ?
The license does not allow for anything like that, I'm afraid.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402165: Workarounds for locking assertions in Sun Java 1.5 and 1.6
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Josh Triplett schrieb:
>> Would the Debian maintainers of sun-java5-bin and sun-java6-bin please
>> consider applying these workarounds to the packages, to avoid locking
>> assertion failures when libx11-6 with Xlib/XCB enters unstable?
>
> sorry, we are only allowed to distribute the unmodified package. I know that
> this is not the best situation.
How about running sed in the postinst?
Barring that, how about shipping an executable script
/usr/share/doc/sun-java{5,6}-bin/unbreak-my-java ?
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#402165: Workarounds for locking assertions in Sun Java 1.5 and 1.6
Josh Triplett schrieb: > Would the Debian maintainers of sun-java5-bin and sun-java6-bin please > consider applying these workarounds to the packages, to avoid locking > assertion failures when libx11-6 with Xlib/XCB enters unstable? sorry, we are only allowed to distribute the unmodified package. I know that this is not the best situation. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
