Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
unarchive 730133
Bug #730133 {Done: Sylvestre Ledru sylves...@debian.org} [src:java-common]
java-common: policy vs lintian: needless-dependency-on-jre
Unarchived Bug 730133
reopen 730133
Bug #730133 {Done: Sylvestre Ledru sylves...@debian.org}
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
The list of virtual packages [1] contains only two packages for the Java
runtimes (java1-runtime and java2-runtime), but new virtual packages
have been in use since at least 2008 when sun-java and openjdk started
to be packaged [2].
Could you please
Reopening, java-common/0.50 removed the required runtime for Java
programs instead of Java libraries.
Emmanuel Bourg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Am 11.07.2014 22:47, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
Le 11/07/2014 20:09, Matthias Klose a écrit :
To be clear, there was nothing restarted. It is done the way I recommended
Emmanuel before he did start, and which he did ignore.
Matthias again I don't understand what you are referring to. You
At least for past releases some support of java is available on every
architecture, not only for release architectures. A big advantage is that you
don't have to use architecture specific build dependencies, but usually packages
building architecture specific binary packages just work. That did
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine
whether
java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ?
Hi Bill,
Here is the definition of these
This was expected but now it's effective, Java 9 no longer supports
source/target level 1.5:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2014-July/000972.html
So if you update a package and see these settings please bump them to 1.6.
It might be interesting to add a Lintian warning when a
Am 15.07.2014 23:08, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
This was expected but now it's effective, Java 9 no longer supports
source/target level 1.5:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2014-July/000972.html
So if you update a package and see these settings please bump them to 1.6.
It
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:08:13PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
So if you update a package and see these settings please bump them to 1.6.
This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs).
And changing that now for jessie is not feasible.
Regards,
Rene
--
To
Le 15/07/2014 23:55, Matthias Klose a écrit :
No. Don't do it. This is complete bullshit for Debian at this point. We are
trying to prepare a release, working on a possible update to Java 8, and we
don't have the resources to work on Java 9 at this time.
Ok, but could you say it nicely
Hi all,
Well, thanks for all the help, but now I'm stuck on step the 9th, trying to
compile SignApk.java. And I think I'm just going to give up.
I'm getting compile errors of the form:
SignApk.java:20: error: cannot find symbol
import org.bouncycastle.asn1.ASN1ObjectIdentifier;
Look,
Le 16/07/2014 00:07, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs).
Fair enough. But we already have a lot of packages incompatible with gcj
in Jessie.
What are the Java applications we want/need on these archs? We should
probably document
Le 14/07/2014 03:53, Miguel Landaeta a écrit :
openjfx is FTBFS due to a missing dependency on antlr3.
Thank you for spotting this issue Miguel. I think I got caught by a
dependency caching mechanism in Gradle, I had another non fatal error
related to antlr instead. After deleting ~/.gradle I
Le 15/07/2014 17:48, Matthias Klose a écrit :
Providing security updates for released versions is tedious, and not many
people
are working on getting these updates into the oldstable and stable releases.
oldstable had only one openjdk version, stable unfortunately has two openjdk
versions
Uploaded.
Cheers,
tony
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 07/15/2014 11:30 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:57:18PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 15/07/2014 16:22, Bill Allombert a écrit :
Could you please write the definition for each of them, and determine
whether
java1-runtime and java2-runtime should be kept ?
Hi
On 07/14/2014 03:56 AM, Markus Koschany wrote:
Hello,
here is the second part of the felix-* update. I updated felix-framework
to version 4.4.0 and I'm looking for a sponsor now.
Changelog:
* Team upload.
* Imported Upstream version 4.4.0.
* Drop 01-java8-compatibility.patch. Fixed
17 matches
Mail list logo
