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.pat
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 ke
Uploaded.
Cheers,
tony
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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
> versio
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 g
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 th
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, I've
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 ple
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 UNSUBSC
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.
>
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 ja
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
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 ch
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.
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: https://lists.debian.org/5
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
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> unarchive 730133
Bug #730133 {Done: Sylvestre Ledru } [src:java-common]
java-common: policy vs lintian: needless-dependency-on-jre
Unarchived Bug 730133
> reopen 730133
Bug #730133 {Done: Sylvestre Ledru } [src:java-common]
java-common: policy v
17 matches
Mail list logo
