Re: OpenJDK 21

On 12.07.24 05:59, tony mancill wrote: Is the intent to allow OpenJDK 21 to migrate to testing, or to get it into unstable and block the migration? I don't understand that. OpenJDK 21 is in testing, this is about changing the default to 21 in java-common. I don't want to drive this

OpenJDK 21

Hi, I'd like to update java-common to OpenJDK 21, basically uploading the package from experimental to unstable. In the past, Emmanuel was leading these updates, but he told me privately that he doesn't have much time in the near future doing that. The transition was finished for Ubuntu

Re: any efforts to get Eclipse IDE (with CDT) back into Debian?

On 16.06.24 23:21, Philippe Cerfon wrote: Hey Emmanuel. On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 6:54 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote: The lack of manpower is still an issue. I'm still able to update the core Eclipse libraries once or twice a year, but the full IDE would require at least a full time maintainer I

Re: Bug#975016: #975016 - OpenJDK 17 support state for Bullseye

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

Re: build package with source and target = java15

On 5/19/21 11:06 AM, Cyril Richard wrote: > Hello. > > I'm trying to update my java package with pbuilder before updating it on > debian. This one now uses java15. > Then, the control files: > > Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13), > default-jdk, > javahelper > > does not work anymore

Re: debhelper 13 (was Re: Kotlin: looking for a DD to review/upload)

On 5/7/21 5:36 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Fri, 7 May 2021, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> Is there any reason to use debhelper 13? Does it have anything that >> is relevant for java packages? Just asking because that's usually >> something which needs to be downgra

Re: Kotlin: looking for a DD to review/upload

On 4/29/21 5:01 PM, Sunil Mohan Adapa wrote: > Hello, > > Kotlin packaging[1] is in a good shape and ready to be uploaded[2] into > Debian. We need a DD willing to upload it. > The actual upload needs to wait for openjdk-8, which is currently in the > NEW queue, to be accepted first. However,

Re: Potential bug in openjdk-11 on mips64el

On 2/15/21 1:40 AM, Olek Wojnar wrote: > Done! [1] Unfortunately, I don't see anything useful there but perhaps one > of you will. > > -Olek > > [1] > https://gist.githubusercontent.com/olekw/32e54c0829d739e8fa88893a853c0fa8/raw/b2fce4d2ab77555a3d28c22441f1de3cb2d99f38/bazel-bootstrap-zero-jre

Re: Potential bug in openjdk-11 on mips64el

[also forwarding to the Debian mips porters] On 2/12/21 10:26 PM, Olek Wojnar wrote: > Hello Java Team and OpenJDK Team, > > I'm hesitant to start filing potentially serious bugs at this point in the > release cycle so please let me know if there's something I'm missing in > this situation. > >

Re: Usage of language specific profiles in build dependencies

On 2/11/21 10:40 AM, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi, > > On 11-02-2021 10:16, Matthias Klose wrote: >> These dependencies should look like: >> >> default-jdk [!hppa !hurd-i386 !kfreebsd-any] >> >> or >> >> default-jdk [alpha amd64 arm64 armel ar

Usage of language specific profiles in build dependencies

Please see https://bugs.debian.org/982085 I think it's wrong to encode build dependencies for language stacks that are not available on some platforms, just using a profile. Seen in gettext: default-jdk , maven-repo-helper and also in db5.3. A more cooperative usage of such build

Re: OpenJDK 17 for bullseye-backports

[please ignore this thread started by Adrian; he's making statements on behalf of other teams, which are not correct. Also he "forgot" to CC the security team and the package maintainers. The issue is handled in #975016.] On 2/6/21 11:47 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 02/02/2021 à 19:04, Adrian

Re: okay to prepare 11.0.9.1+1 for Debian stable proposed updates?

On 11/25/20 12:05 AM, tony mancill wrote: > Thank you for the recent uploads of 11.0.9.1 [1]. Given that it > addresses JDK-8250861 [2] (which is serious, although I'm unsure as to > whether it is DSA-worthy) and there are likely derivatives that would > benefit from the update, would you mind if

Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye

On 11/18/20 8:03 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> For OpenJDK there are two other possibilities, which would require approval >> by >> release managers / stable release managers. >> >> - openjdk-16 will

Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye

On 11/18/20 7:46 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:20:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> [removed the Python 2 bits] >> >> On 11/17/20 11:08 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >>> Package: debian-security-support >>> Severity: norm

Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye

On 11/18/20 1:36 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Matthias Klose: > >> As background: OpenJDK 12 can only be built with 11, 13 with 12, 14 with 13, >> 15 >> with 14, 16 with 15. Only having 11 in bullseye would make backports more >> "interesting". >

Re: Bug#975016: Python 2 / OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye

[removed the Python 2 bits] On 11/17/20 11:08 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Package: debian-security-support > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@debian.org, t...@security.debian.org > openjdk-15 will be included, but not covered by support > (as it's only needed to bootstrap openjdk-16 and

Re: Potential issue with JNA native library search path on some architectures

On 10/19/20 9:04 PM, Reinhard Pointner wrote: > Dear libjna-java package maintainers, > > > The libjna-java package seems to apply a few patches that make things work > on some architectures but not others. > > > 1. > This patch will make JNA search for jnidispatch in >

swt4-gtk in unstable for 100 days

Hi, swt4-gtk is stuck in unstable for 45 days, the previous version was stuck for 50 days without migrating. Apparently Debian follows upstream to not build on 32bit archs anymore. That's ok, however please could somebody file removal requests for all the i386 packages which need removal now?

Re: OpenJDK 14 (ea) entering testing

/2019/07/msg9.html) >> There was a question : Would anybody be interested in setting up a >> machine to check builds with interim OpenJDK versions? > > @Matthias Klose do you mean that set up an build daemon, > and try to build all of the related packages with every major vers

Re: Feedback on OpenJDK jpackage tool early access builds

On 02.09.19 13:22, Dalibor Topic wrote: Hi Emmanuel, thank you for your interest - the jpackage source code can be found in the JDK-8200758-branch of the JDK sandbox repository at https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/sandbox I haven't looked into that yet, but some questions first: - is the

Re: Java 8 and 11 quarterly release tags

On 17.07.19 14:51, Martijn Verburg wrote: > Hi all, > > I've updated the info below - happy building! > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 23:44, Martijn Verburg > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> For this quarterly release the tags are: >> >> *Java 8 (all non-aarch64)* >> >> * jdk8u222-b10 (which matches

OpenJDK 13 (ea) entering testing

The next OpenJDK LTS will be OpenJDK 17, to be released in September/October 2021. So we will stay with OpenJDK 11 for bullseye. However we should start testing packages using the interim versions, or else we'll have again one big version bump from 11 to 17. To get a bit more exposure of these

Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates

On 29.05.19 23:51, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 26/05/2019 à 23:51, tony mancill a écrit : > >> For the update to buster via testing-proposed-updates, I have prepared >> 11.0.3+7-4+deb10u1, which is simply your 11.0.3+7-4 package [2] targeted >> at buster via t-p-u and with the changelog updated to

Re: openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW)

On 26.05.19 21:13, Matthias Klose wrote: > The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable > (although > the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again > in > NEW, targeting unstable. One of the FTP assistants is objectin

Re: Mystery meat OpenJDK builds strike again

On 27.05.19 18:23, Gil Tene wrote: >> Did you try to contact Debian folks to give them opportunity to fix those >> security concerns before going public with them? Or did they not react in >> time? > > Multiple times over ~4.5 years, and through multiple channels. The > “we don’t care”, “go

Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates

On 26.05.19 23:51, tony mancill wrote: > Thank you for weighing in on the thread. I have been building openjdk > packages all weekend and now understand that the version number is > required to be numeric as per the upstream build system - i.e., > VERSION_BUILD won't pass the test here [1] if it

Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates

On 26.05.19 23:55, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 26/05/2019 à 21:52, Matthias Klose a écrit : > >>> It looks like upstream is going to append a -ea suffix to the version >>> reported by the pre-releases [1]. This is a welcome clarification and we >>> shoul

Re: Mystery meat OpenJDK builds strike again

I am disappointed to see such trolling, bashing and telling fake news on a technical mailing list. Is this Azul's business model to promote their own binary builds? Such behavior propagates e.g. via twitter https://twitter.com/jroper/status/1130678379403857920 I'm starting the discussion about

Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates

On 22.05.19 12:24, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 22/05/2019 à 06:17, tony mancill a écrit : > >> For stable backports and buster, I agree that we should upload an >> 11.0.3-ga package, particularly given the vulnerabilities still present >> in 11.0.3+1: CVE-2019-2698, CVE-2019-2684, and

Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates

On 24.05.19 20:29, Martijn Verburg wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 15:40, tony mancill wrote: > >> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:58:14PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >>> Le 23/05/2019 à 19:04, Martijn Verburg a écrit : >>> What was the difficulty in grabbing the 11.0.3+7 tag directly? >>> >>>

openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW)

The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable (although the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again in NEW, targeting unstable. One of the FTP assistants is objecting to the upload to unstable, apparently because somebody (security team,

Re: Why OpenJDK debugging symbols for 12 and 13 are not allowed?

On 11.04.19 13:01, Mykola Nikishov wrote: > Hi, > > While multiple versions of openjdk-*-jdk could be installed at the same > time, it is not the case for packages that provide debugging symbols for > post-11: > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > $ for v in 8

Re: Enabling jaw (Java-atk-wrapper) by default ? (Bug#900912)

On 11.04.19 20:24, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi doko, > > On 07-04-2019 12:08, Samuel Thibault wrote: >>> I disagree. I'll do the next upload with Samuel's proposed patches, not >>> enabling that by default, together with the planned security update. Then >>> people can start testing if the wrapper

Re: Bug#924634: libuima-as-java depends on the removed libspring-jms-java

Control: severity -1 serious On 06.04.19 14:55, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > Control: severity 924634 wishlist > > * Matthias Klose [190406 12:53]: >> libuima-as-java depends on the removed libspring-jms-java in unstable. > > Lowering severity as libspring-jms-java is still

Re: Bug#900912: "AtkWrapper not found" error impacting JOSM on Ubuntu/Mint

On 06.04.19 15:13, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi > > On 06-04-2019 08:55, Samuel Thibault wrote: >>> please don't NMU. In the past the atk patches broke the non-atk use case >>> way too >>> often. Maybe you want to upload to a PPA or to experimental to give this a >>> little bit more testing. >> >>

Re: Bug#900912: "AtkWrapper not found" error impacting JOSM on Ubuntu/Mint

On 01.04.19 17:24, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Samuel Thibault, le lun. 01 avril 2019 15:54:17 +0200, a ecrit: >> Vincent Privat, le ven. 24 août 2018 18:33:56 +0200, a ecrit: >>> Patching openjdk with your try/catch proposal and making the ATK wrapper a >>> Recommends sounds a good idea. >>> >>>

cross-building OpenJDK and JNI bindings

According to http://crossqa.subdivi.de/src/openjdk-11 there is one missing issue to cross build OpenJDK itself (#925467, please make ant and ant-optional M-A: foreign). Note that the Debian tracker gives this M-A as well. Looking further, we should make other build systems like gradle and groovy

Re: Bug#912549: icedtea-web FTBFS with OpenJDK 11

On 14.03.19 23:03, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > > > On 13/03/2019 17:47, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> please look at the new upstream 1.7.2 and 1.8 releases. > > I got a quick look at these new versions released this week, IcedTea Web > 1.7.2 is rather close to the versio

Re: icedtea-web FTBFS with OpenJDK 11

On 13.03.19 10:54, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:41:22AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: >> Michael Crusoe has suggested a workaround[1]. What do you think about >> this? > > In case there is no answer to this question I assume it is OK to > upload the workaround. Hope you agree

Re: has anybody looked at adoptopenjdk

On 17.09.18 16:09, shirish शिरीष wrote: > Dear all, > > I was reading > https://blog.joda.org/2018/08/java-is-still-available-at-zero-cost.html > > I know that the Debian openjdk team is small . Has anybody have been > able to look at - > > https://adoptopenjdk.net/support.html > > and > >

Re: OpenJDK 11 -- testing needed

On 20.07.2018 23:28, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 20/07/2018 à 22:14, Markus Koschany a écrit : > >> I think the sooner we make OpenJDK 11 the default the better. This makes >> it more likely that we detect runtime issues before the freeze. I >> suppose there will be some FTBFS fallout again but I

OpenJDK 11 -- testing needed

Hi, OpenJDK now is feature complete, and the package in unstable should migrate to testing soonish. I didn't do any test rebuilds with 11 yet, but I think now it's time to start doing these. Chris West did these for 10, but doesn't seem to be active at the moment. Is there anybody volunteering

bumping the default Java from 9 to 10 ... and 11

The last security updates for OpenJDK were only released for OpenJDK 10. OpenJDK 9 is now unsupported upstream. At some point in the near future we should switch to OpenJDK 10 as the default JDK (which is supported at least until early 2019). At some point the the not so distant future, i.e.

Re: OpenJFX 9 integration

On 04.04.2018 07:10, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 10/23/2017 01:00 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit : >>> (C) looks like the best workaround for now. Looking at at least four >>> security >>> releases per year, an

Re: Bug#870258: GCC 7 related library transitions

On 13.03.2018 09:38, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 03/03/18 10:59, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> As you can see it's a bunch of packages building with gcc-6 & g++-6. They >> probably >> need new upstream versions that support GCC 7. The only exception is >> libpam-script >>

Re: JDK 10 Early Access b33 and JDK 8u162 Early Access b03 are available on jdk.java.net

Rory, Dalibor, is it really necessary to have these advertisements of Oracle's binary only, architecture limited builds on a mailing list of a community project dedicated to build binaries from sources? I can't find such advertisements on e.g. mailing lists for the Fedora project either.

Re: Impact of the new Java release policy on Debian

On 24.11.2017 11:05, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi all, > > Oracle has recently announced a new release policy for Java [1][2], to > sum it up: > - new major Java revisions will now be released every 6 months > - there will be non-LTS releases supported for 6 months, and LTS > releases supported 5+

Re: OpenJFX 9 integration

On 12.10.2017 13:13, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi all, > > I started working on OpenJFX 9 this week. The good news is that it > builds fine in Debian now [1]. The bad news is that it's going to be > significantly more challenging to integrate it with our OpenJDK package. > > With OpenJDK 8 the

Re: CDBS regression affecting Java packages

On 14.10.2017 11:29, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi all, > > FYI many Java packages are currently failing to build due to a > regression in CDBS 0.4.143 (#878510). The DEB_UPSTREAM_VERSION variable > now contains the Debian revision and the builds typically break during > the install phase because

Fwd: A lot of packages fixed to build with jdk9

Fyi, Forwarded Message Subject: A lot of packages fixed to build with jdk9 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:42:29 +0200 From: Fridrich Strba To: IcedTea Hello, good people, In openSUSE Tumbleweed, our rolling distribution,

Re: ca-certificates-java_20170930_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

On 30.09.2017 16:18, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > Le 30/09/2017 à 02:35, Debian FTP Masters a écrit : > >> - Stop fiddling around with jvm-*.cfg files. ca-certificates-java >>has no business with providing an initial cacerts file. This is >>implemented in the

Re: Why dependency on both default-jre and java-runtime

On 23.08.2017 20:11, Carnë Draug wrote: > Hi > > I was going through the pkg-java policy and found this [1]: > > Programs must depend on the needed runtime environment > (default-jre or default-jre-headless if need a GUI or not, and > java-runtime or java-runtime-headless as provided

Re: Notes from the DebConf 17 Java BOF

On 11.08.2017 20:49, Carnë Draug wrote: > On 11 August 2017 at 23:06, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> [...] >> On 08/09/2017 02:50 AM, Tom Marble wrote: >>> [...] >>> 6. Autopkgtest >>>- We should use this more >>>- Can include built-in tests >>>- We can (or autopkgtest

Re: Advice regarding Java packages for SimpleITK

On 10.08.2017 09:09, tony mancill wrote: > Java bindings to the GDCM DICOM library. It allows developers to use > GDCM from Java environment. > drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2017-08-07 07:28 ./ > drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2017-08-07 07:28 ./usr/ > drwxr-xr-x root/root 0

Re: Java BoF at DebConf?

On 07.08.2017 14:13, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 06.08.2017 07:13, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 18.07.2017 19:14, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> not sure how many people will visit DebConf. Would it make sense to have a >>> buster BoF? I'l

Re: Java BoF at DebConf?

On 06.08.2017 07:13, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 18.07.2017 19:14, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Hi, >> >> not sure how many people will visit DebConf. Would it make sense to have a >> buster BoF? I'll be there, and would like helping organizing such a BoF if >> there &

Re: Java BoF at DebConf?

On 18.07.2017 19:14, Matthias Klose wrote: > Hi, > > not sure how many people will visit DebConf. Would it make sense to have a > buster BoF? I'll be there, and would like helping organizing such a BoF if > there > is interest. There is only adHoc scheduling 24h befo

Java BoF at DebConf?

Hi, not sure how many people will visit DebConf. Would it make sense to have a buster BoF? I'll be there, and would like helping organizing such a BoF if there is interest. Matthias

Re: Looking at an archive rebuild with opendjk-9-jdk

On 29.06.2017 15:16, Chris West wrote: > I rebuilt ~300 packages[1] which build-depend on default-jdk in a > hacked-up[2] "chroot" which uses openjdk-9-jdk, in place of openjdk-8-jdk. > (i.e. custom java-common build + some Provides: hacks.) thanks for doing that! Usually java9 support comes in

Re: java outlook for stretch and buster

On 10.09.2016 12:28, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 10/09/16 11:09, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> The ARM32 port already is in an upstream repository, and I'm told >> that the s390x is on it's way. Even if these ports will not be >> merged before openjdk-10, it's my in

java outlook for stretch and buster

As part of an overview of different toolchains [1], I looked at java as well (re-posted here): """ Java/OpenJDK For the stretch release openjdk-8 will be fine as the default java implementation. For buster, gcj (to be removed in GCC 7) won't be available anymore, and we'll end up

Re: OpenJDK 8...

On 05.02.2016 07:59, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: ...is now the default Java runtime in unstable! I just uploaded java-common/0.55 to unstable and it switched the default-jre/jdk to openjdk-8 for all the architectures previously defaulting to openjdk-7. I expect a few packages to FTBFS after this

Re: Packages not supported in wheezy-lts

questions: - what to do with openjdk-6? CCing the Java team and Matthias Klose to have their input. Matthias, until when is OpenJDK 6 supported upstream? For how long do you plan to continue to provide backportable updated packages in experimental? I don't plan to update that beyond the EOL

Re: Bug#801683: ITP: gradle-debian-helper -- Helper tools for building Debian packages with Gradle

On 13.10.2015 15:20, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Emmanuel Bourg * Package name: gradle-debian-helper Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Emmanuel Bourg * URL :

Re: Default JRE and Java plugin

On 07.10.2015 11:34, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Hi all, I'm still rounding the corners for the switch to OpenJDK 8 and there is a remaining issue regarding the Java plugin. The src:icedtea-web package provides the icedtea-plugin package which pulls icedtea-7-plugin. Matthias would like to split

Re: Default JRE and Java plugin

On 07.10.2015 12:28, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 07/10/2015 11:47, Matthias Klose a écrit : Not moving/or renaming the iceded-plugin to java-defaults would need rebuilds of the icedtea-web package on the version change. Not a big deal, but that's why I don't like 3. I'm not sure to understand

Re: Default JRE and Java plugin

On 07.10.2015 13:10, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: We could probably make it provide icedtea-plugin too, so people using old tutorials can still get the right plugin. then introducing the need to rebuild the icedtea packages on a version change.

Re: OpenJDK 8 transition

On 09/03/2015 08:53 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 03/09/2015 00:39, Matthias Klose a écrit : > >> I disagree. Please revert mips/mipsel back to gcj, or fix the mips/mipsel >> builds >> for openjdk-8 (and for openjdk-9). The other alternative would be not to >>

Re: openjdk-*-jdk, depends on -jre instead of -jre-headless

On 07/05/2015 10:08 PM, Jan Henke wrote: Am 05.07.2015 um 20:18 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Le 05/07/2015 09:11, Jan Henke a écrit : I would like to open discussion, whether it is possible to make the jdk depend on the headless jre only. The full jre could be a recommends, so it does get install

openjdk-9 available in experimental

Hi, openjdk-9 is now available in experimental. for now it just builds on amd64 and i386. However I'd like to evaluate if we can skip openjdk-8 for stretch and default to openjdk-9 (the road map would still be to default to openjdk-8 first, and then to -9). Is there anybody who wants to

Re: Bug#786895: lintian: incompatible-java-bytecode-format warning needs update for Java 1.7

On 05/27/2015 03:41 PM, Jan Henke wrote: Am 27.05.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Thorsten Glaser: On Wed, 27 May 2015, Rene Engelhard wrote: I know, there at least we need to kill gcj support. But until then. Or we decide we don't care ab out 1.5/gcj now. Explicitely. On Wed, 27 May 2015, Markus

Re: Help with Java package needed

On 04/26/2015 07:20 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi, I intent to package mauve[1] and prepared the package in Git[2]. Please rename the package. We already have a mauve package in the archive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe.

Re: Stretch Roadmap

On 04/24/2015 03:19 PM, Miguel Landaeta wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:36:05PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: my personal goals for Stretch are: Hi, From my side I'd like to add: * Update jruby to 1.7.x soon and release Stretch with 9.x. yes, would like to see 9.x as well. At least

Re: Stretch Roadmap

On 04/24/2015 12:55 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Hi all, I'd like to share my goals for the next release, feel free to comment and add yours as well so we can coordinate our efforts on the overlapping topics. * Java Runtime: - Provide Java 8 backports for Jessie and Wheezy these should

Re: RFS: jffi-1.2.7 and jenkins-1.565.3-4

On 04/04/2015 05:22 AM, tony mancill wrote: Hi Tim, the jffi update looks pretty good, lots of great work, but I have a question about the -jni package. The current packaging creates a libjffi-jni binary package that installs an arch:any file under /usj. That's going to break on multi-arch

Re: Correct dependency for package needing Java 6?

On 01/27/2015 05:35 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Jan Niehusmann wrote: Yes, sure - I missed that, because I tried the builds in clean chroots, where only one JDK was installed. Right, of course. But debian java policy states Packages must be built with default-jdk.

Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu

On 01/19/2015 03:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 19/01/15 11:35, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: I've requested an access to the TCK for Java 8 in June to run it on the Debian packages but I haven't heard back from Oracle yet. I'd ping them again. this is a problem. I now got access to the TCK for

Re: OpenJDK 8 vs Zulu

On 01/18/2015 11:21 PM, Jonathan Yu wrote: Hey everyone, Awhile back, there was a question on the Mechanical Sympathy mailing list (if you haven't heard of it before, it's a group for discussing development of high-performance programs, mainly focussing on Java). Gil Tene (CTO and

Re: Openjdk-8 in Debian/backports?

On 12/31/2014 04:23 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 31/12/2014 11:19, Thomas Zlika a écrit : Thanks for the tip and the pre-built binaries. However, the version is sid is a beta release (I think 8u40 will not be released before spring) so I would prefer a more stable version. Btw, I don't

test rebuild with openjdk-8, build log analysis and bug filings needed

results from a test rebuild with openjdk-8 as the default can be found at https://people.debian.org/~doko/logs/20140912/ using the packages from deb https://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/20140820 ./ I won't have time to analyse the results and file bug reports until mid October, so please go

Re: Bug#759558: gcj-4.9-jdk: broken symlinks for j{awt,ni}{,_md}.h

Am 28.08.2014 um 18:08 schrieb Steven Chamberlain: reassign 759558 gcj-4.9-jdk found 759558 gcc-4.9/4.9.1-9 thanks gcj-4.9-jdk isn't a source package, so the BTS seems a little confused about who to mail about this bug; I don't think the maintainers were notified. The original bug report

Re: jessie: Problems upgrading openjdk-7-jdk with openjdk-7-source installed

Am 27.07.2014 21:33, schrieb Felix Natter: Sylvestre Ledru sylves...@debian.org writes: Hello Felix, On 27/07/2014 19:42, Felix Natter wrote: hello, I get this: Preparing to unpack .../openjdk-7-jdk_7u65-2.5.1-2_amd64.deb ... Unpacking openjdk-7-jdk:amd64 (7u65-2.5.1-2) over

Re: jessie: Problems upgrading openjdk-7-jdk with openjdk-7-source installed

Am 28.07.2014 um 19:25 schrieb Felix Natter: Sylvestre Ledru sylves...@debian.org writes: On 28/07/2014 10:41, Matthias Klose wrote: Am 27.07.2014 21:33, schrieb Felix Natter: Sylvestre Ledru sylves...@debian.org writes: Hello Felix, On 27/07/2014 19:42, Felix Natter wrote: hello, I

Re: RFS: openjdk-8/8u5-b13-1 (NEW)

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

java for jessie

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

Re: Java 9 dropping support for source/target level 1.5

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

Re: RFS: openjdk-8/8u5-b13-1 (NEW)

Am 11.07.2014 17:47, schrieb Miguel Landaeta: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:11:29AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Matthias has restarted the packaging from the latest version of openjdk-7 and merged some of my changes. To be clear, there was nothing restarted. It is done the way I recommended

Re: ecj_3.10.0+3.9.0-2_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Am 07.07.2014 15:55, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Le 07/07/2014 15:34, Debian FTP Masters a écrit : Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers pkg-java-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org Changed-By: Matthias Klose d...@debian.org Description: ecj- standalone version of the Eclipse Java

Re: RFS: ecj/3.10.0-1 - [UPLOADED]

Am 05.07.2014 20:20, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Le 05/07/2014 18:13, Matthias Klose a écrit : You should use the ecj from the eclipse package, if you need the exact upstream version, you should use org.eclipse.jdt.core from the eclipse-platform-data package, and maybe split out the jar file

Re: Bug#753791: simgrid: FTBFS on hurd-i386

Am 06.07.2014 19:06, schrieb Samuel Thibault: Gabriele Giacone, le Sat 05 Jul 2014 03:41:09 +0200, a écrit : It FTBFS on hurd [...] cd /home/user/port/simgrid/simgrid-3.11.1/doc /usr/bin/javadoc -quiet -d /home/user/port/simgrid/simgrid-3.11.1/doc/html/javadoc/

Re: RFS: ecj/3.10.0-1 - [UPLOADED]

Am 01.07.2014 00:09, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Le 30/06/2014 14:52, Matthias Klose a écrit : This breaks the gcj builds configured with --enable-java-maintainer mode. I filed an RC issue, and planning to revert that upload next weekend. If we can't get gcc and ecj 3.10 to work together I'd

Re: RFS: ecj/3.10.0-1 - [UPLOADED]

Am 30.06.2014 23:12, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Thank you for the log Matthias. Could you also detail the steps to reproduce this error please? I tried to build gcc with --enable-java-maintainer-mode but I didn't see this error (but my configure args were probably incomplete). see

Re: Bug#708350: transition: java7

Am 30.06.2014 01:03, schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort: Control: block -1 by 750640 720911 Control: block 720911 by 750640 On 30/06/14 00:56, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Hi Steven, On 29/06/14 18:58, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Hi, On 24/06/14 16:11, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Is there

Re: RFS: ecj/3.10.0-1 - [UPLOADED]

Am 28.06.2014 06:33, schrieb tony mancill: On 06/26/2014 09:10 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Hi all, I packaged the latest version of the Eclipse Compiler for Java and I'm looking for a sponsor to upload it. This is the first release supporting the new Java 8 syntax. This update will fix 4

Re: RFS: ecj/3.10.0-1 - [UPLOADED]

Am 30.06.2014 15:05, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Le 30/06/2014 14:52, Matthias Klose a écrit : This breaks the gcj builds configured with --enable-java-maintainer mode. I filed an RC issue, and planning to revert that upload next weekend. Such uploads should go to experimental first if at all

Re: RFS: openjdk-8/8u5-b13-1 (NEW)

Am 25.06.2014 14:51, schrieb Miguel Landaeta: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 09:17:09AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 25/05/2014 03:06, Miguel Landaeta a écrit : Is there any news on this? No, Matthias told me he was working on it but he hasn't committed anything yet. The package has been on

Re: openjdk-8 package available for review

Am 02.05.2014 06:36, schrieb tony mancill: On 05/01/2014 10:05 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 01/05/2014 18:27, Felix Natter a écrit : Another question: Is it sufficient to point update-java-alternatives to openjdk-8 in order to use it to build and run subsequent packages (that build-depend

Re: RFS: openjdk-8/8u5-b13-1 (NEW)

Am 02.05.2014 12:40, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Hi all, Here we go, I prepared the openjdk-8 package and I'm looking for a sponsor to upload it. There are several issues pending but the package is already usable to work on the Java 8 transition. Please don't sponsor this package. I'm

Re: RFS: openjdk-8/8u5-b13-1 (NEW)

Am 02.05.2014 15:19, schrieb Sylvestre Ledru: On 02/05/2014 15:14, Matthias Klose wrote: Am 02.05.2014 12:40, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: Hi all, Here we go, I prepared the openjdk-8 package and I'm looking for a sponsor to upload it. There are several issues pending but the package is already

  1   2   3   4   >