Re: Bug#771988: RM: jspwiki/2.8.0-5 -- RoM, NBS

[Adam D. Barratt]

Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org

On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 22:49 -0800, tony mancill wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is the right way to request removal of a package
> from unstable (https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals doesn't
> explicitly list unstable, that I could find),

It's not; you want ftp.debian.org, as ftp-master handle unstable.
Re-assigning with this message.

The "how to request removal" section of that wiki page does say "File a
bug against the ftp.debian.org pseudo-package". Unstable is not
explicitly mentioned as an ftp.d.o bug is the default action; the
"testing, stable and oldstable" section exists to document the
exceptions to that.

> but I'd like to request
> the removal of jspwiki.  The package is outdated (2+ years behind
> upstream), in contrib, and currently FTBFS.  It is also wrapped up in
> the [auto-cruft] report for tomcat6.
> 
> This removal was discussed on debian-java; we'll look at packaging a
> fresher version of jspwiki down the road.
> 
> Please let me know how to direct this request if I have landed in the
> wrong place.
> 
> Cheers, and thank you in advance,
> tony

Regards,

Adam


__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Re: tomcat6 wheezy DSA (was/and Re: tomcat6_6.0.41-2+squeeze5_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 21:03 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> 
> On Sonntag, 23. November 2014, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 19:43 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > oh, "btw": jessie has -2, sid -3, with changes unsuitable for wheezy and
> > > targeted at jessie. this needs an unblock request to let -3 migrate to
> > > jessie and have the binaries removed from sid first... anybody doing
> > > this?
> > 
> > It needs more than that; from the cruft-report:
> 
> that's the cruft report for which distro?

For unstable, to go with your "needs ... the binaries removed from sid".
Those are the things blocking ftp-master from semi-automagically
removing them.

Regards,

Adam



__
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 discussions and questions.

Re: tomcat6 wheezy DSA (was/and Re: tomcat6_6.0.41-2+squeeze5_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 19:43 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> oh, "btw": jessie has -2, sid -3, with changes unsuitable for wheezy and 
> targeted at jessie. this needs an unblock request to let -3 migrate to jessie 
> and have the binaries removed from sid first... anybody doing this?

It needs more than that; from the cruft-report:

* package libtomcat6-java in version 6.0.41-2 is no longer built from source
[...]
  - broken Depends:
tomcat-maven-plugin: libtomcat-maven-plugin-java
[...]
* package tomcat6 in version 6.0.41-2 is no longer built from source
[...]
  - broken Depends:
biomaj-watcher/contrib: biomaj-watcher
guacamole-client: guacamole-tomcat
jspwiki/contrib: jspwiki
  - broken Build-Depends:
jspwiki/contrib: tomcat6

* package tomcat6-common in version 6.0.41-2 is no longer built from source
[...
  - broken Build-Depends:
tomcat-maven-plugin: tomcat6-common

Regards,

Adam



__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Re: Bug#793984: jessie-pu: package groovy/1.8.6-4

[Adam D. Barratt]

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +pending

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 18:01 -0300, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 06:56:38PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > 
> > Moving the rdeps to groovy2 seems the better fix to me (#793911).
> 
> I agree on that and I believe debian-java is working towards that
> goal.
> 
> However, I have not figured yet out how to fix CVE-2015-3253 since
> groovy FTBFS in stretch and sid (#793630).

I see that "groovy" in unstable is now the 2.X codebase, and appears to
include the fix for the CVE.

Flagged for acceptance.

Regards,

Adam


__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#736365: tuxguitar: stable package depends on obsolete xulrunner-10.0

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 09:13 -0800, tony mancill wrote:
 On 01/22/2014 12:03 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
  The version of tuxguitar in wheezy still depends on xulrunner-10.0,
  whereas wheezy now has iceweasel 17 and will shortly (at least via
  -security) have 24.
  
  Would it be possible to update the package to support newer iceweasel
  versions? Please prepare a proposed debdiff and open a pu bug against
  release.debian.org to discuss that.
[...]
 I have tested the updated package (debdiffs attached to the BTS [0]) on
 wheezy with updates and proposed-updates installed.

Thanks.

 I couldn't find a
 xulrunner-24.0 package for wheezy, so the testing was done with
 xulrunner-17.0 before and after purging xulrunner-10.0.

It's not released yet, but Moritz mentioned the availability of test
packages in http://lists.debian.org/slrnldgk6n.4om@inutil.org

 [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736365#15

Regards,

Adam

__
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 discussions and questions.

Bug#736365: tuxguitar: stable package depends on obsolete xulrunner-10.0

[Adam D. Barratt]

Package: tuxguitar
Version: 1.2-13
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org

Hi,

The version of tuxguitar in wheezy still depends on xulrunner-10.0,
whereas wheezy now has iceweasel 17 and will shortly (at least via
-security) have 24.

Would it be possible to update the package to support newer iceweasel
versions? Please prepare a proposed debdiff and open a pu bug against
release.debian.org to discuss that.

Regards,

Adam

__
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 discussions and questions.

Bug#674448: CVE-2012-2098

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 11:15 +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
 Package: libcommons-compress-java
 
 Dear maintainer,
 
 Recently you fixed one or more security problems and as a result you closed
 this bug. These problems were not serious enough for a Debian Security
 Advisory, so they are now on my radar for fixing in the following suites
 through point releases:

That's already requested via #681996.

Regards,

Adam

__
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 discussions and questions.

Bug#665749: [ca-certificates-java] How did this occur?

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 15:10 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
 I'm confused as to how you ran into this error.

If you want to ask the submitter something, you need to mail them too,
not just the bug... added.

 /etc/java-6-openjdk/security.nss.cfg is part of openjdk-6-jre-headless:
 
$ dpkg -S /etc/java-6-openjdk/security/nss.cfg
openjdk-6-jre-headless:amd64: /etc/java-6-openjdk/security/nss.cfg
 
 ca-certificates-java depends on openjdk-6-jre-headless:
[...]
Depends: ca-certificates (= 20090814), openjdk-6-jre-headless (=
  6b16-1.6.1-2) | java6-runtime-headless, libnss3-1d (= 3.12.10-2~)

Actually, it depends on openjdk-6-jre-headless _or_
java6-runtime-headless.  Although I'm not sure it was the case here, the
latter virtual package is also provided by openjdk-7-jre-headless, fwiw.

Regards,

Adam




__
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 discussions and questions.

Bug#656760: antlr: Rebuild for Mono transition

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sat, 2012-01-21 at 16:12 +0100, Julian Taylor wrote:
 A Mono transition is underway. Every source package needs to be rebuilt
 to compile against CLR 4.0 instead of CLR 2.0. Please upload antlr for
 this change. You can check it worked if, after rebuilding, coco-cs has a
 dependency on libmono-corlib4.0-cil instead of …corlib2.0-cil.

itym libantlr2.7-cil :)

Regards,

Adam




__
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 discussions and questions.

Bug#611138: CVE-2010-4438

[Adam D. Barratt]

user release.debian@packages.debian.org
usertag 611138 + squeeze-can-defer
tag 611138 + squeeze-ignore
thanks

On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 22:34 +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
 On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:46:32PM +0100, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
  So I don't think Debian package is affected by this issue, but we'll have 
  to 
  wait until Oracle/Glassfish team publish some source code to confirm ths.
 
 Ok, I've updated the Security Tracker to mark it as not-affected. I wasn't
 aware that the Debian Glassfish package doesn't provide the full stack.

In that case, this sounds like a fix could be deferred until after the
release, if it's required at all; tagging as not a blocker.

Regards,

Adam




__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please 
use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#610320: FTBFS: jug-2.0.0-1 with ant-1.8.1-1 from experimental

[Adam D. Barratt]

severity 610320 important
thanks

On Mon, January 17, 2011 14:53, Tom Ellis wrote:
 Package: jug
 Version: 2.0.0-1
 Severity: serious
 Justification: fails to build from source

 This bug has been forwarded from Ubuntu
 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jug/+bug/687979), but also
 tested on latest debian sid with ant packages from experimental.

 jug-2.0.0-1 fails to build from source with ant-1.8.1-1 from experimental.

Thanks for your report.

Packages are only required to be buildable within a given release.  When
ant 1.8.1-1 is in unstable, this will qualify for an RC severity; in the
meantime, it doesn't.

Regards,

Adam




__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please 
use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Re: unblocking eclipse-cdt

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 15:33 +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
 we have users at the institute asking for the cdt in eclipse
 as they prefer to c++ in eclipse.
 
 any reason why this 36 old package missed the freeze so closely.

Not commenting on the merits of the package, but the freeze was
initially announced in early August and eclipse-cdt was uploaded two
months after that; that's a fairly elastic definition of closely.

Regards,

Adam


__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please 
use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#602697: should not be included in squeeze

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 11:38 +0100, Thomas Koch wrote:
 I've written a mail (Remove Solr from Squeeze?) on 2010/10/12 to
 debian-java and the package's maintainer Jan-Pascal van Best and
 proposed the removal of solr from Squeeze, mainly because:
 
 - - it's already outdated a year by now (see bug #602696 )
 - - it doesn't even include all contribs (see bug #602695 )
 - - the package has accumulated too many bugs
 - - there doesn't seem to be enough (wo)man power to maintain the package
   right now on a standard that would make it fit for Debian _stable_
 
 So until nothing else happens, please don't include solr in Debian
 squeeze.

The package has a reverse-dependency in testing already, so can't be
removed right now:

Checking reverse dependencies...
# Broken Depends:
chef: chef-solr

It's also in lenny (albeit in contrib) so if it were removed then a
migration path for those users to a replacement would be good.

Regards,

Adam




__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please 
use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Re: Bug#574356: RM: eclipse/3.2.2-6.1

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:03 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
 I would to have eclipse from stable removed. The particular version of eclipse
 in stable does not work with xulrunner 1.9 (or higher). The incompatibility
 cannot be fixed with a binNMU and is not trivially patchable. This is
 especially true for xulrunner in backports (1.9.1) which broke compatibility
 with xulrunner 1.9.
 
 Backporting a newer version of eclipse is at the current time not an option:
   - 3.4.1 is not release ready (and does not work with xulrunner 1.9.1).
   - 3.5.2 would require backporting 11+ depedencies[1].
 
 While there has been reports of workarounds, I am not confident that we will
 be able to build a new eclipse for stable with them within a resonable time
 frame[2].

For the record, this implies the removal of eclipse-cdt and
eclipse-nls-sdk; I've cloned this bug to create removal bugs for those.

Regards,

Adam

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please 
use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#583143: sun-java6-jre: version 6-20-0lenny1 does not install , from proposed updates in debian lenny

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 21:45 +0200, Torsten Werner wrote:
 On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Patrick Holthuizen patr...@eaze.org wrote:
  Package: sun-java6-jre
  Versions: 6-20-0lenny1
 ...
  (/var/lib/apt/lists/http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_lenny-proposed-updates_non-free_binary-i386_Packages)
 
 Neither i386 nor ia64 packages have been built for proposed-updates so
 far (maybe because sun-java6 is a non-free package). But this is not a
 bug in the package. I am Cc-ing the release team to get some
 clarification.

As Rene mentioned, non-free autobuilding is currently not operational;
there is ongoing work to integrate it in to the buildd network.

Regards,

Adam



__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please 
use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#503164: /usr/bin/cacao not included in alpha package

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:15 -0500, Bob Tracy wrote:
 Package: cacao
 Version: 0.99.4~20081012-2
 Severity: grave
 Justification: renders package unusable
 
 
 Packaging error: many files missing from alpha architecture version of
 the .deb file.  /usr/bin/cacao is an obvious omission.  The included
 man pages are symbolic links to non-existent files.

From a quick look, this doesn't appear to be restricted to alpha. At
least the amd64 and i386 packages are also missing the principal binary,
amongst other files that are in the file list provided by packages.d.o.

Regards,

Adam



___
pkg-java-maintainers mailing list
pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers