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 wil

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

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 u

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 prep

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 >>> (tha

Re: Bug#743131: FTBFS if default-jdk is gcj-jdk

Am 31.03.2014 19:50, schrieb Steven Chamberlain: tags 743131 + patch jessie sid clone 743131 -1 reassign -1 src:eclipse-cdt found -1 eclipse-cdt/8.3.0-1 thanks Hi, On 31/03/14 17:49, Sébastien Villemot wrote: Therefore, would that be an acceptable course of action for you if I restrict the arc

Re: zookeeper FTBFS with gcj as default-jdk

Am 23.03.2014 22:12, schrieb Tim Retout: Hi all, What's the right thing to do when Java packages can only build against openjdk-7-jdk, and not gcj? Since the latest default-jdk upload, zookeeper now fails to build on kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 and sparc: https://bugs.debian.org/742405 I gue

Bug#732282: stop building java for sparc, sparc64, s390, kfreebsd-any

Am 16.12.2013 11:34, schrieb Matthias Klose: > Package: java-common > Version: 0.50 > Severity: serious > Tags: jessie, sid > > openjdk-7 currently ftbfs on sparc, sparc64, s390, kfreebsd-any. So please > either remove the default-* packages on these archs, or fall bac

Bug#732282: Removing openjdk-7 for kfreebsd and sparc

please see http://bugs.debian.org/732282 Is there anybody who wants to maintain openjdk for these architectures? If not, I'll go ahead and make gcj-jdk the default again on those architectures and request removal of the kfreebsd and sparc binaries. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian

Bug#732282: stop building java for sparc, sparc64, s390, kfreebsd-any

Package: java-common Version: 0.50 Severity: serious Tags: jessie, sid openjdk-7 currently ftbfs on sparc, sparc64, s390, kfreebsd-any. So please either remove the default-* packages on these archs, or fall back to gcj. - the hotspot port for linux sparc isn't maintained anymore by upstream.

Re: default-java and openjdk-7 on sparc

Am 23.11.2013 14:01, schrieb Aurelien Jarno: > The patch I sent for MIPS also mentions SPARC as it has the same > alignment constraints. That said the patch fixes zero, while SPARC is > using hotspot by default instead. Maybe using zero on SPARC is a > possibility, though it will decrease performan

Re: RFS: netbeans_7.0.1+dfsg1-6

Am 06.11.2013 21:11, schrieb Joachim Zobel: > * Workaround for bug #720684 in openjdk-6-jdk. > - Changes the jdk dependency to openjdk-7-jdk. > - Changes the laucher script to use openjdk-7-jdk. so this still keeps an rc issue open for jessie to not build using openjdk-7. -- To UN

Re: Are there any java7-jdk providers other then openjdk-7-jdk?

Am 26.10.2013 17:05, schrieb Joachim Zobel: > Hi. > > There are none in wheezy, are there any outside of debian? ubuntu? > oracle? > > (I found I can reduce complexity of my netbeans patch if I go straight > for openjdk-7-jdk instead of java7-jdk). how does it "reduce complexity"? -- To UNSUB

Re: ${java:Depends} and ${misc:Depends}

Am 23.10.2013 07:07, schrieb tony mancill: > Just a comment about the JRE portion of these dependencies... It would be > easier in the long term to depend on "default-jre" unless there is a > specific need for openjdk-7-jre. and even better to depend on default-jre-headless, if there a no X / So

Re: Openjdk-6 bug hurts netbeans

Am 12.09.2013 07:57, schrieb Joachim Zobel: > Am Mittwoch, den 11.09.2013, 22:17 +0200 schrieb Matthias Klose: >> No, at least this version has a check for 6 built in. Please check for >> 7.4. > > What kind of check do you mean? Sure it is still there? > netbeans --jdk

Re: Openjdk-6 bug hurts netbeans

Am 11.09.2013 20:06, schrieb Joachim Zobel: > Hi. > > I did report the following bug > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=720684 > > which makes netbeans half way unusable. > > Should I write a referencing netbeans bug report? no, netbeans needs somebody committed to do regular

Re: default-jdk change on kfreebsd

Am 17.08.2013 16:21, schrieb Christoph Egger: > Moin! > > Steven Chamberlain writes: >> On 16/08/13 13:15, Christoph Egger wrote: >>> I talked to rene here at DebConf. The problems did show up in the past >>> when running the testsuite (hangs). Rene tried with current OpenJDK on >>> falla -- in

Bug#714528: openjdk-7 ftbfs on kfreebsd (patch updates needed)

Package: openjdk-7 Version: 7u25-2.3.10-1 Severity: serious User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertag: kfreebsd the kfreebsd patches fail to apply, updates are needed. (the unrelated ia64 and s390 ftbfs are fixed in the vcs). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org wit

Re: Java defaults for kfreebsd-amd64

Am 18.06.2013 12:19, schrieb Steven Chamberlain: > Hi Java maintainers, > > Please could kfreebsd-amd64 be added to the list of openjdk-7 arches on > the next upload of java-common? (patch attached) mips and mipsel should stay with openjdk-6. not built anymore in -7. Matthias -- To UNSUBSC

Re: GSoC project "OpenJDK and Debian" accepted

Am 28.05.2013 06:21, schrieb Andreas Kuckartz: > The GSoC proposal "OpenJDK and Debian" was accepted: > https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/google/gsoc2013/shuxiong/29001 > > More details: > http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/StudentApplications/ShuxiongYe > > Congratulations to the

transition: java7

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition jessie won't ship anymore with OpenJDK 6, so we have to build and run using OpenJDK 7. The good thing is that almost everything will continue to run, we just have to fix build failures

Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures

Am 13.05.2013 19:07, schrieb Markus Koschany: > Hi, > > most of these bugs for the java7 transition are only severity "normal" and > not all packages are maintained within the Java Team. Wouldn't it be better > to raise the severity to "serious" now? > > I believe i can help in fixing some of the

Re: changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures

Am 13.05.2013 18:07, schrieb Javier Vasquez: > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on >> architectures with non-working java7. > > Just asking as a loongson-2f user, :-) > &

Re: GlassFish 3.x

Am 11.05.2013 17:31, schrieb Markus Karg: > So if I am reading correctly between the lines your answer means, that I > have to start completely from scratch, do all the work on my own, and > there are no current plans by anybody to support GF 3.x already? I > wonder what then actually is the idea o

changing the java default to java7, and dropping java support for some architectures

It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on architectures with non-working java7. Patches for the transition to Java7 should be available in the BTS, mostly submitted by James Page. Some may be still lurking around as diffs in Ubuntu packages, apologies for that. T

Re: Pack200 compression of packaged jars

Am 01.05.2013 22:00, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 01/05/2013 20:33, Matthias Klose a écrit : > >> thanks for checking. I assume that xz or bz2 compression won't help there >> either? > > pack200+xz/lzma is slightly better than pack200+gz, but not much (~3% > for

Re: Pack200 compression of packaged jars

Am 01.05.2013 19:45, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 01/05/2013 19:10, Matthias Klose a écrit : > >> so what is the difference in size for the .deb files, both with >> unmodified jars, and packed jars? > > For libcommons-jexl2-java packing the jar saved about 70% of the size

Re: Pack200 compression of packaged jars

Am 26.04.2013 20:05, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 26/04/2013 17:25, Matthias Klose a écrit : >> Am 26.04.2013 15:40, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: >> >> what is the overhead on startup time when these need to get unpacked? >> Maybe pick a non-x86 architecture for this as wel

Re: Pack200 compression of packaged jars

Am 26.04.2013 15:40, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 26/04/2013 15:11, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit : > >> Has anyone considered compressing the jars in the binary packages with >> pack200? I think this could significantly reduce the size of the >> packages. > > As an example, I compressed the jar in the

Re: Deprecation of *-gcj packages

Am 12.04.2013 13:41, schrieb Sylvestre Ledru: > Hello, > > Maybe I am missing a point but I have the feeling that the -gcj packages > are now a bit useless. no. why should they be useless? > gcj does not seem a very active project [1] and my perception is that > not many people are using gcj pac

Re: openjdk maintenance for wheezy and squeeze

Am 22.03.2013 19:08, schrieb Moritz Mühlenhoff: > Matthias Klose schrieb: >>> I'm not familiar with the Java internals, but if we're following that >>> approach >>> it would make sense to upgrade Wheezy to the version in experimental >>> (i.e

Re: Who still cares about SVN for packaging?

Am 23.03.2013 08:53, schrieb Mathieu Malaterre: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Hilko Bengen wrote: >> * Sylvestre Ledru: >> >>> Asking several times the same question won't help you with that ... >>> You should focus on packaging itself. >> >> Way to go, telling people in a largely volunteer-

Re: Too old JRE/JDK in repos

Am 11.03.2013 04:47, schrieb tony mancill: > On 03/07/2013 11:07 PM, Roman V.Leon. wrote: >> Hello gentlemen. Could you advise please, why the JRE/JDK versions are >> too old in Debian? There were a few security issues recently but current >> version in testing is still 7u3, while the oracle versio

Re: Too old JRE/JDK in repos

Am 10.03.2013 04:10, schrieb d...@zorglub.s.bawue.de: > Hi, > > On 09/03/13 14:20, Roman V.Leon. wrote: >> Eric thank you for the broad answer. > You're welcome. > >> >> > One reason is surely manpower, so you are more than welcome to help. >> >> With pleasure, just do not know how to start, so

Re: openjdk maintenance for wheezy and squeeze

Am 01.03.2013 04:35, schrieb Moritz Mühlenhoff: > Backporting security fixes with Java has turned out to be more of less > unfeasible. I tried this once with DSA 2507 and I think that amounted to at > least > two man days of work for that update alone. Also, Ubuntu has shipped > backports to all

Re: Upgrading visualvm/netbeans

Am 05.03.2013 03:44, schrieb Paweł Pałucha: > 1. Debian visualvm is based on IcedTea visualvm harness. The last > visualvm version supported by IcedTea is actually 1.3.3. Should I > pursue with IcedTea to get them support 1.3.5 first? Probably it's > possible to make small changes to force it build

Bug#699757: Java 6 support ending, Java 7 not in squeeze

If you ware not aware, with your bug report you reached the debian-java ML. Usually to keep up with Java development in Debian, please subscribe to the list, archives can be found at https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/ Am 04.02.2013 18:27, schrieb Christian Bernardt: > Package: default-jdk > Ver

Re: Use of bnd package for generating OSGi metadata

Am 20.02.2013 15:44, schrieb James Page: > I would request that if possible any Debian Java team maintained packages > which are also in Ubuntu main NOT use bnd but patch in the OSGi data (or > something similar). This will keep Ubuntu and Debian much closer in sync > in terms of Java packages. a

Re: openjdk maintenance for wheezy and squeeze

Am 18.02.2013 00:08, schrieb Niels Thykier: > On 2013-02-17 23:04, Matthias Klose wrote: >> - Remove openjdk-6 in wheezy. Probably would require falling back to >>gcj. Not recommended as a runtime environment, but should work fine >>for building packages, as ecj

openjdk maintenance for wheezy and squeeze

There is a bug report open for openjdk-6 in wheezy (#675495) and squeeze didn't see any security updates for several months. To summarize, no party involved is capable or willing to provide security updates based on backports of single patches to the released openjdk-6 version in a stable release.

Re: Bug#699757: Java 6 support ending, Java 7 not in squeeze

Am 08.02.2013 06:37, schrieb tony mancill: > I took a stab at this. It's not quite as straight-forward as the steps > listed, but it may not be completely out of the realm of possibility (at > least not yet). thanks for the flowers. > Starting from a clean chroot: > > 0) apt-get install devsc

Re: Porting src:openjdk-6 to m68k (II)

Am 28.11.2012 22:07, schrieb Thorsten Glaser: > Dixi quod… > >> If one of you, either java or porter guys, has further suggestions, >> just tell ☺ > > That includes if I should stop bothering with -6 and try -7 > immediately, considering reading about #675495 now. The B-D > are there, nowadays. >

Re: Cleanup in pkg-java subversion tree

On 04.08.2012 20:46, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Le 04/08/2012 20:39, Thomas Koch a écrit : >> Hi, >> > [...] >> Maybe, for the next Debian release, we can migrate the last java packages to >> Git? >> > Please let the packages I maintain under SVN. same for my packages, or the packages where I'm lis

Re: Help: symlink problems building openjdk-6

On 03.08.2012 16:33, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: > Le 03/08/2012 14:36, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : >> Hi, > > Hi Thorsten, > >> after doko recommended it to me *way* back then, but only now I’ve >> got all of its Build-Depends installable, I’m currently trying to >> build src:openjdk-6 (with all re

Re: New work on java-package

On 20.03.2012 13:48, Barry Hawkins wrote: On 3/20/12 7:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 03/19/2012 07:11 PM, Barry Hawkins wrote: The focus of my message was to point out the need for users of Debian and its derivatives to be able to install an official JRE or JDK from Oracle. If I gave the impres

Re: javaws / jnlp policies ?

On 06.03.2012 13:38, Barry Hawkins wrote: 1.) javaws and jnlp has pretty much always required the full non-free JRE, I don't think it was ever a thought to package a Java Web Start application in main, much less develop guidelines for it. 2.) Java Web Start and jnlp have had marginal adoption ov

Bug#656599: default-jdk: Java JDK not installable on squeeze

> The following packages have unmet dependencies: > openjdk-6-jdk : Depends: openjdk-6-jre (>= 6b18-1.8.10-0+squeeze2) >but it is not going to be installed > E: Broken packages try to install openjdk-6-jre directly, and every package with such a message until you see the cause of the issue.

OpenJDK 6 builds on mips, using gcj to bootstrap

OpenJDK 6 currently ftbfs on mips*, using gcj-4.6. Please could a mips porter please check if gcj-4.7 from experimental is good enough to build OpenJDK 6? gcj-4.7 won't be installed on the porter machines, so this to be done by somebody with access to a mips machine. Thanks, Matthias -- To U

Re: java architecture names and armhf/sh4

On 01/17/2012 10:24 AM, peter green wrote: > While looking at armhf build failures I took a look at uwsgi I determined it > was > failing on armel, armhf, sh4 and powerpc due to using incorrect paths for java > stuff (it's also failing on ia64 and alpha for what appears to be unrelated > reasons).

Re: Eclipse and swt-gtk

On 01/16/2012 04:45 PM, Jakub Adam wrote: > Hi Niels, > >> Do you know if this stops eclipse from "extracting/installing" the SWT >> binaries into ~/.eclipse ? > > Yes it does, only SWT binaries left are the ones in /usr/lib/jni installed by > libswt-gtk-3-jni (and other swt -jni packages). > >>

Re: New work on java-package

On 01/04/2012 01:51 PM, David Gerard wrote: > [to list as well as Russ!] > > > On 3 January 2012 19:17, Russ Allbery wrote: >> David Gerard writes: > >>> To clarify: these are binaries that the previous 6u26 packages linked >>> from /etc/alternatives, which running the present Oracle 6u30 JDK

Re: New work on java-package

On 01/01/2012 10:00 PM, Cédric Pineau wrote: > To build upon several threads regarding java-package, I've played with it > on my side with the hope it could find his way back in debian (I too need > clean installs of Oracle java on debian, should it only be because it's > Oracle one and companies/p

Re: RFS: eclipse (new upstream release with Java 7 support)

On 12/30/2011 11:23 PM, Jakub Adam wrote: >> on which platforms? i.e. are the "architecture templates" updated to build on >> more than amd64 and i386? > > There are arm, ia64, mips, ppc and sparc in the additional architectures - see > contents of > debian/eclipse-build-additionalArchs.tar.bz2. >

Re: RFS: eclipse (new upstream release with Java 7 support)

On 12/30/2011 03:14 PM, Jakub Adam wrote: > * Package name: eclipse >Version : 3.7.1-1 > > It builds those binary packages: on which platforms? i.e. are the "architecture templates" updated to build on more than amd64 and i386? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@l

Re: openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 multiarch installable

On 09/26/2011 11:13 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Well, at build time, I understand but how do you do at runtime ? There > are programs which need to guess the actual path and which won't depend > on our java wrappers... which ones? and how do these guess the VM used? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Re: openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 multiarch installable

On 09/26/2011 07:41 PM, Torsten Werner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> hmm, on second thought, I think this looks wrong. at build time you always >> have >> the output of dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH available, so you can >

Re: openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 multiarch installable

On 09/25/2011 10:28 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 09/25/2011 08:54 PM, Torsten Werner wrote: >> Hi, >> >>>>>> openjdk-6-jre-headless now doesn't use java-6-openjdk anymore. so with >>>>>> the >>>>>> appropriate conflict

Re: openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 multiarch installable

On 09/25/2011 08:54 PM, Torsten Werner wrote: > Hi, > > openjdk-6-jre-headless now doesn't use java-6-openjdk anymore. so with the > appropriate conflicts, this symlink can be moved to default-jre-headless. > > I do not think that this is a good solution. IMHO openjdk-6 should > build a p

Re: openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 multiarch installable

On 09/21/2011 10:54 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Le mercredi 21 septembre 2011 à 21:20 +0200, Damien Raude-Morvan a > écrit : >> Hi, >> >> Le vendredi 02 septembre 2011 03:06:47, Matthias Klose a écrit : >>> On 09/01/2011 10:46 PM, Torsten Werner wrote: >

Re: openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 multiarch installable

On 09/01/2011 10:46 PM, Torsten Werner wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: why deleting the remainder of the email and not reading the email up to the end? JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk is the answer? I believe that we will see some FTBFS problems. But

Re: openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 multiarch installable

On 08/31/2011 11:13 PM, Torsten Werner wrote: Hi Matthias, On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: The path /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk isn't valid anymore. It currently only contains common jar files. which path should we use now if we want to use openjdk-6 explic

openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 multiarch installable

openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 are now multiarch installable, unfortunately only on distributions having a dpkg supporting these (Ubuntu natty and oneiric). So you can have now both a i386 and amd64 jvm installed on amd64, and you could install the i386 jitted jvm on ia64. It is implemented by having

Re: java-access-bridge official packaging source ?

On 08/31/2011 12:12 AM, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: Le mercredi 31 août 2011 00:03:26, Torsten Werner a écrit : we should try to merge doko's changes back into our SVN repo. Do you need help? Ok, I finally found doko packaging on launchpad [1]. I'm already working on this package, so I'll work

Re: openjdk-6 segfaults and gcc-4.6.1 failures

On 08/04/2011 02:34 PM, Tom Marble wrote: > On 08/04/2011 02:41 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> which architectures? > Attempting to build on amd64. > >> which versions? > I used openjdk-6 6b18-1.8.9-0.1 for bootstrapping, but I'm quite > interested in your opinion o

Re: openjdk-6 segfaults and gcc-4.6.1 failures

On 08/04/2011 05:13 AM, Tom Marble wrote: > All: > > Just a quick note for those interested in building OpenJDK > (6, 7 or 8) in unstable... > > I am now getting build failures on amd64... Some of these > seem to be related to gcc 4.6.1 (resolved by using gcc 4.5.3) > and some seem to be a new ro

Re: unsupporting Architecture: mips

On 07/29/2011 12:02 AM, Ludovic Claude wrote: Hello, Would it be possible to use OpenJDK Zero on Mips, but without the Shark JIT. This would render Java very slow on this architecture, but at least there would be something, and this would reduce the impact on other packages such as Subversion.

Re: unsupporting Architecture: mips

On 07/28/2011 03:58 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote: if openjdk then works (for LibreOffice) on ia64, yes, I could live with that. Currently the gcj-using archs for LibreOffice are ia64, kfreebsd-%. mips switched to OpenJDK, mipsel is in limbo... as said in the past, please track it down to a standal

Re: RFC: Separation of JTreg tool into independent project

On 07/04/2011 02:24 PM, Pavel Tisnovsky wrote: > Hi all, > > some time ago I discussed with Andrew John Hughes about the separation > of JTreg tool from the IcedTea6 and IcedTea7 projects. In summary (ie > how I understand this task): JTreg should be developed as independent > project and in the f

gcj* packages broken for some time for the multiarch changes

The gcj* packages are broken for some time while the multiarch changes are ongoing until the various packages are rebuilt. See http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Bootstrapping for the status. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscri

Re: [Openjdk] Introduction GSoC Jigsaw student

On 05/17/2011 12:30 AM, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: Welcome Guillaume, [I've kept you CC since I don't know if you're subscribed to debian-java or openjdk ML] On Fri, 13 May 2011 11:36:40 +0200, Guillaume Mazoyer wrote: My name is Guillaume Mazoyer and I am the student who will work on packag

Re: Offline javadoc linking with maven-debian-helper/maven

On 05/06/2011 04:34 PM, James Page wrote: Hi All After feedback from Niels on my first package for Debian I've been trying to get a new maven based package (args4j - see [0]) to link its javadoc against the default-jdk-doc API files provided in /usr/share/doc/openjdk-6-doc/api. please referenc

Re: RFP: jamvm -- A tiny blue book compatible Java virtual machine

On 05/02/2011 10:37 PM, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: Hi, Le dimanche 17 avril 2011 13:35:52, Mark Hobley a écrit : * Package name: jamvm Version : 1.5.4 Upstream Author : Robert Lougher * URL : http://jamvm.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Programming Lang

Re: ARM support to be removed from IcedTea

On 24.03.2011 16:15, Xerxes Rånby wrote: >> http://gbenson.net/?p=257 >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2011-March/012556.html >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2011-March/013044.html >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2011-March/0

Re: Setting goals for Wheezy

On 16.02.2011 17:15, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le mardi 15 février 2011 à 18:00 +0100, Matthias Klose a écrit : On 08.02.2011 18:06, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le mardi 08 février 2011 à 17:07 +0100, Torsten Werner a écrit : Hi, - Find code duplication. Dak may help as soon as it has package

Re: Setting goals for Wheezy

On 08.02.2011 18:06, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le mardi 08 février 2011 à 17:07 +0100, Torsten Werner a écrit : Hi, - Find code duplication. Dak may help as soon as it has package contents in its database. Great news! - OpenJDK 7? With Tom Marble, we would like to propose a GSOC about jigsaw.

Re: Setting goals for Wheezy

On 09.02.2011 00:17, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: Hi, I've some overlap with your own goals Torsten :) Le mardi 08 février 2011 17:07:13, Torsten Werner a écrit : - Port openjdk to kfreebsd with either hotspot or jamvm. kibi, tuco and I tried and, AFAIK, we all failed. Have you started working

Re: Setting goals for Wheezy

On 09.02.2011 13:28, Torsten Werner wrote: Hi, Am 09.02.2011 00:17, schrieb Damien Raude-Morvan: I've some overlap with your own goals Torsten :) that's good. You can take my tasks. :) kibi, tuco and I tried and, AFAIK, we all failed. Have you started working on this ? from upstream "bsd-po

Re: OpenJDK / default JDK for squeeze / issues on mips / open security issues for lenny

On 20.01.2011 08:06, tony mancill wrote: On 01/19/2011 10:36 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * tony mancill: On 01/14/2011 11:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: * tony mancill: As per Section 5.8.5 of the Developer's Reference, I'd like to get confirmation from the Security Team that they are anticipat

Re: OpenJDK / default JDK for squeeze / issues on mips / open security issues for lenny

On 14.01.2011 20:46, Florian Weimer wrote: * tony mancill: As per Section 5.8.5 of the Developer's Reference, I'd like to get confirmation from the Security Team that they are anticipating and approve of the upload of the new source version. (My apologies if this has already been covered; I jo

Re: OpenJDK / default JDK for squeeze / issues on mips / open security issues for lenny

On 23.12.2010 05:10, tony mancill wrote: On 12/22/2010 04:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: On 17.12.2010 15:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Fri, December 17, 2010 14:16, tony mancill wrote: On 12/13/2010 03:22 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: so please use the one from unstable, re-generate the control

Re: OpenJDK / default JDK for squeeze / issues on mips / open security issues for lenny

On 17.12.2010 15:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Fri, December 17, 2010 14:16, tony mancill wrote: On 12/13/2010 03:22 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: so please use the one from unstable, re-generate the control file on a stable system, and re-upload. Matthias Hello Matthias - I'm able to

Re: OpenJDK / default JDK for squeeze / issues on mips / open security issues for lenny

On 22.12.2010 06:32, tony mancill wrote: On 12/17/2010 06:24 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: On 17.12.2010 15:16, tony mancill wrote: On 12/13/2010 03:22 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: On 14.12.2010 00:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matthias Klose

Re: OpenJDK / default JDK for squeeze / issues on mips / open security issues for lenny

On 17.12.2010 15:16, tony mancill wrote: On 12/13/2010 03:22 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: On 14.12.2010 00:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matthias Klose: For those who are interested in an openjdk-6 update for stable, I did prepare an

Re: OpenJDK / default JDK for squeeze / issues on mips / open security issues for lenny

On 14.12.2010 00:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matthias Klose: For those who are interested in an openjdk-6 update for stable, I did prepare an update for some architectures at deb http://people.debian.org/~doko/archive stable/ Cool

Re: Clear definition of default-java and its scope

On 08.12.2010 14:00, Niels Thykier wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi In light of LP: #687263 and LP: #564699 I think it might be time for us to clearly define the purpose of default-java; not only for our own sake but also for the sake of Java users on Debian(-based dist

Re: /usr/lib/jni not put in java.library.path, sun java 5 and 6

On 17.11.2010 17:09, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Le mercredi 17 novembre 2010 à 10:54 -0500, Scott Howard a écrit : tags 382686 patch thanks On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Scott Howard wrote: I also don't know if a user setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH on their own overwrites our java.library.path Se

Re: OpenJDK on hppa (reprise)

On 06.08.2010 11:58, Gary Benson wrote: Tom Marble wrote: Back in January there were some threads on this and specifically about the direction of stack growth [0] (cross posted [1] [2]). The Debian Java team has decided that as we need to support this architecture and thus I wanted to see if an

OpenJDK / default JDK for squeeze / issues on mips / open security issues for lenny

OpenJDK was just uploaded to unstable, based on the IcedTea6-1.8.1 release [1]. This version addresses some security issues, and this version should be shipped with squeeze. The package should build on all architectures except on mips. openjdk-6 on mips doesn't seem to be good enough to build i

Re: Packages-arch-specific: restrict spring and springlobby to i386 and amd64

looks like these packages don't build with gcj. It's not a reason not to builds these for some architectures supported by OpenJDK. OpenGL hardware is not tied to ix86 platforms. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou

Re: RFC: OpenJDK bug categories

On 10.05.2010 22:50, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: Hi, I have done some bug triaging in OpenJDK's Debian bugs with the following result:. As you can see, we now have the following categories: + Need Porting [porting] + Icedtea Plugin [plugin] + Java Web

Re: implementing sensible-java to improve the alternative system

On 06.05.2010 16:00, Torsten Werner wrote: Hi Matthias, improving the current alternative-based system is needed, but you only replace one inflexible system with another one. That is intended somehow. Java-common should not be updated too often and that is why the flavor mapping is based on d

Re: implementing sensible-java to improve the alternative system

On 05.05.2010 22:46, Torsten Werner wrote: Hi, I have an idea about implementing sensible-tools for the java world and wrote them down at. I have already implemented a proof of concept. What do you think about it? Does it make sense at all? Is the prefix

Re: Preferred jax-rs implementation?, was:Re: where to get jaxb from?

On 29.04.2010 14:21, Thomas Koch wrote: Torsten Werner: Emmanuel Bourg schrieb: That sounds a bit risky and prone to break in the future. The JAXB RI is licensed under CDDL+GPL2, so it should be possible to package it and depend on this version instead. But neither com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v

Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 13.04.2010 00:52, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Tue Apr 13 00:46, Matthias Klose wrote: if this is available on all archs and doesn't do anything if gcj is not available, then yes. Yes, although if you are trying to build a -gcj package on an architecture which does not have gcj, pos

Re: Policy Changes: Executable jars and removal of Compiler section.

On 12.04.2010 19:06, Niels Thykier wrote: p2_java_executables.patch rewords the part about executable jar files under the Java Programs section. It will allow Java Programs to install in accordance with the Debian Policy (and not just in /usr/bin). It also specifies where private jar files should

Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 13.04.2010 00:36, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Mon Apr 12 19:57, Matthias Klose wrote: On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Johnson schrieb: AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting that we h

Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 12.04.2010 14:40, Torsten Werner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Johnson schrieb: AIUI you were complaining about the specific use of gcj-jdk. I'm suggesting that we have a meta package for jdk and a metapackage for -gcj packages and depend on jdk, -gcj; rather t

Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 12.04.2010 12:42, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Mon Apr 12 10:56, Vincent Fourmond wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Niels Thykier wrote: As some of you know, default-jdk-builddep (usually) pulls in two JDKs (openjdk-6 and gcj/gij) to create -gcj packages. However, some people are not a

Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 12.04.2010 13:08, Vincent Fourmond wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Enrico Zini wrote: On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: The change was discussed here on the ML. I don't mind about the name, but this should be a distinct package. CC'

Re: Solving the default-jdk-builddep mess

On 12.04.2010 11:27, Torsten Werner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Niels Thykier schrieb: I think the best idea is to rename default-jdk-builddep into something else that does not trigger the "Ah, this is what I should put in B-D"-instinct of our fellow maintainers an

<    1   2   3   4   >