* Matthias Klose:
> unfortunately the -2 build did fail on s390 and armel.
>
> - s390: rebuilt by hand on raptor/unstable without problems.
>Bastian pointed to #479952 as a possible reason. would it
>be possible to do a test-rebuild on the machine which is
>used security updates?
I'm
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 11:16:02PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - s390: rebuilt by hand on raptor/unstable without problems.
>Bastian pointed to #479952 as a possible reason. would it
>be possible to do a test-rebuild on the machine which is
>used security updates?
Works according t
* Matthias Klose:
> - s390: rebuilt by hand on raptor/unstable without problems.
>Bastian pointed to #479952 as a possible reason. would it
>be possible to do a test-rebuild on the machine which is
>used security updates?
I think we can apply a real security patch to all the Sun-base
Florian Weimer writes:
> > the openjdk-6 package runs the testsuite. if the security team prefers
> > shorter build times, then the testuite can be disabled in security
> > uploads.
>
> Uhm, okay.
I didn't change this in the -2 upload.
> > the testsuite is not run in the cacao-oj6 package.
>
>
* Matthias Klose:
>> Well, you know that there is a T2000 available and if the security team
>> needs a faster buildd they have to ask.
>
> the estimate is wrong.
I what sense? I quoted the actual build time on lebrun. Is spontini
really faster than that?
> the openjdk-6 package runs the tests
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:43:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > A security update for the OpenJDK 6 source base will require more than
> > 60 hours of armel build time, and more than two weeks[1] on sparc for
> > openjdk-6 alone (don't know cocoa-oj6 yet).
>
> The fastj
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Luk Claes:
>
> > Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> proposing a freeze exception for cacao-oj6 for testing. cacao-oj6 is a
> >> copy of the openjdk-6 package with the cacao sources
> >> included. Compared to openjdk-6 on architectures with
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:43:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> A security update for the OpenJDK 6 source base will require more than
> 60 hours of armel build time, and more than two weeks[1] on sparc for
> openjdk-6 alone (don't know cocoa-oj6 yet).
The fastjar changes are aimed to decrease t
* Luk Claes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> proposing a freeze exception for cacao-oj6 for testing. cacao-oj6 is a
>> copy of the openjdk-6 package with the cacao sources
>> included. Compared to openjdk-6 on architectures without the Hotspot
>> JIT support, cacao-oj6
Matthias Klose wrote:
> proposing a freeze exception for cacao-oj6 for testing. cacao-oj6 is a
> copy of the openjdk-6 package with the cacao sources
> included. Compared to openjdk-6 on architectures without the Hotspot
> JIT support, cacao-oj6 (including a JIT) is a much faste
proposing a freeze exception for cacao-oj6 for testing. cacao-oj6 is a
copy of the openjdk-6 package with the cacao sources
included. Compared to openjdk-6 on architectures without the Hotspot
JIT support, cacao-oj6 (including a JIT) is a much faster JVM on the
architectures where it does build
11 matches
Mail list logo
