Hi Carnil,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 09:38:27PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Sort of. Just for exanding the context, there is a note about it in
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#limited-security-support
thanks, I've added openjdk-17 to secu
Hi Holger,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:47:25AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> hi,
>
> as both openjdk-11 and openjdk-17 have received security updates and
> as I understand this very bug report, we can close this bug as nothing
> regarding the security-status of openjdk-(11|17) in bullseye needs to
On 2/10/22 11:26, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Am Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:59:00PM +0100 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
>> Hi Holger,
>>
>>> and filed against src:debian-security-support, as openjdk-17 seems to be
>>> supported and src:debian-security-support's purpose is to documented what's
>>
>> no, 11 i
Am Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:59:00PM +0100 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Hi Holger,
>
> > and filed against src:debian-security-support, as openjdk-17 seems to be
> > supported and src:debian-security-support's purpose is to documented what's
>
> no, 11 is supported, 17 is just for users to run third-
Hi Holger,
> and filed against src:debian-security-support, as openjdk-17 seems to be
> supported and src:debian-security-support's purpose is to documented what's
no, 11 is supported, 17 is just for users to run third-party
stuff on (IIUC).
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Infrastrukturexperte • tarent sol
hi,
almost exactly a year ago...
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 11:59:23AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> So I'm going with option 1, preparing for an openjdk-17 in bullseye, and
> preparing release notes and notes for security support. This is more
> conservative than option 2, but allows to do better
6 matches
Mail list logo
