Le 26/07/2021 à 05:03, Paul Wise a écrit :
> Since tomcat9 was released in buster a long time ago,
> is it now time to remove tomcat8 from Debian experimental?
Yes no objection.
Emmanuel Bourg
ter a long time ago,
is it now time to remove tomcat8 from Debian experimental?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Le 12/02/2019 à 14:35, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> Since I have no permission to remove repositories in java-team could you
> be so kind to remove the now outdated repository[2].
Done
Emmanuel Bourg
nce I have no permission to remove repositories in java-team could you
be so kind to remove the now outdated repository[2].
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/milib
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/milib
d[1] in
my latest upload.
Since I have no permission to remove repositories in java-team could you
be so kind to remove the now outdated repository[2].
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/milib
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/milib
--
http://fam-tille.de
Hi,
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 06:44:17PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I took a quick look at the current status:
[...]
> That leaves aspectj as the only blocker:
With the new aspectj in testing, this is no longer an issue. I added a removal
hint for
webkitgtk/2.4.11-4 eclipse/3.8.1-11
ns and src:libnb-platform18-java and update the osgi patch.
>
> If there are no objections I could go ahead and upload
> libequinox-osgi-java to NEW.
>
> eclipse-rcp:
>
> * svnkit:
>
> There are two Eclipse specific classes that fail to build. As a
> workaroun
osgi patch.
>
> If there are no objections I could go ahead and upload
> libequinox-osgi-java to NEW.
>
> eclipse-rcp:
>
> * svnkit:
>
> There are two Eclipse specific classes that fail to build. As a
> workaround we could remove one of them and patch SVNWCUtil.
>
eclipse-rcp:
* svnkit:
There are two Eclipse specific classes that fail to build. As a
workaround we could remove one of them and patch SVNWCUtil.
* android-sdktools and android-platform-tools-swt
According to [1] both packages should be removed anyway.
After that there would be only three packa
Am 12.10.2017 um 01:12 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
[...]
> Could we keep the --has-package-version flags please? If we change the
> behavior of maven-debian-helper in a near future putting them back in
> all packages is going to take a lot of time. There is really no harm
> keeping them for now.
First
Le 12/10/2017 à 00:19, Markus Koschany a écrit :
> apo pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository jackson-dataformat-xml.
>
> commit 2551833752954baf7102eda30528858ffcc14aad
> Author: Markus Koschany
> Date: Wed Oct 11 18:23:22 2017 +0200
>
> Remove --
Le 10/09/2016 à 13:05, Giovanni Mascellani a écrit :
> d/maven.rules can be used to fix wrong POM dependencies. Can it be use
> to completely remove a dependency or should I resort to manual patching
> in that case?
Hi Giovanni,
You can remove a dependency by simply adding a rule
Dear Java packagers.
d/maven.rules can be used to fix wrong POM dependencies. Can it be use
to completely remove a dependency or should I resort to manual patching
in that case?
Thanks, Giovanni.
--
Giovanni Mascellani
PhD Student - Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy
http
Your message dated Tue, 01 Sep 2015 21:22:38 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#770579: fixed in java-common 0.53
has caused the Debian Bug report #770579,
regarding java-common: Please remove me from uploaders
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Package: java-common
Severity: minor
Usertags: retirement-java
Hi,
I have retired from the Java Team[1] and kindly ask to be removed as
uploader of java-common. Thanks for having me. :)
~Niels
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2014/11/msg00032.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-j
Le 23/07/2014 07:37, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Please let me know if somebody wants to keep wsdl2c in Debian, otherwise I
> will
> file a request for removal.
Hi Charles,
Is there any hope to see the packaging effort for Eucalyptus resumed? If
so I think it doesn't harm to keep wsdl2c a bit lo
Dear all,
the wsdl2c package was introduced to bring the Eucalyptus cloud software in
Debian. It is not necessary anymore, and I do not have the impression that it
is used by other software. Its popcon score (11) is compatible with the
hypothesis that it is mostly installed on the computers of t
/OutgoingConnectionFactory.java:32: error:
name clash: remove(K,V) in MultiHashMap and remove(Object,Object) in HashMap
have the same erasure, yet neither overrides the other
remove(K key, V value)
^
where K,V are type-variables:
K extends Object declared in class MultiHashMap
files to
/«BUILDDIR»/mkgmap-0.0.0+svn2981/build/classes
[javac] warning: [options] bootstrap class path not set in conjunction
with -source 1.7
[javac]
/«BUILDDIR»/mkgmap-0.0.0+svn2981/src/uk/me/parabola/util/MultiHashMap.java:57:
error: name clash: remove(K,V) in MultiHashMap and
/nist/core/MultiValueMapImpl.java:35: error:
name clash: remove(Object,Object) in Map and remove(K,V) in MultiValueMap have
the same erasure, yet neither overrides the other
[jain-javac] public class MultiValueMapImpl implements
MultiValueMap, Cloneable {
[jain-javac]^
[jain-javac
Le 06/11/2013 15:23, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
> severity 676618 important
> user 676618 multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> usertags 676618 multiarch
> thanks
>
> I am wondering if this make sense to remove /usr/lib/jni from openjdk
> and al. since we now have /us
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 676618 important
Bug #676618 [java-common] java-common: Update java policy for multiarch glue
lib (-jni package)
Severity set to 'important' from 'normal'
> user 676618 multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Unknown command or malformed
severity 676618 important
user 676618 multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
usertags 676618 multiarch
thanks
I am wondering if this make sense to remove /usr/lib/jni from openjdk
and al. since we now have /usr/lib/$(DEB_MULTIARCH)/jni
$ cat openjdk-6-6b27-1.12.6/debian/patches/deb-multiarch
Hi,
I just uploaded new versions of maven-*-helper to experimental to fix a
NullPointerException but I did not even test them. - Because it's to hard to
test them.
maven-debian-helper can only be tested if it is installed because it has hard
coded paths in it. I wanted to remove the
gt; http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=av...@debian.org
>
> I propose to remove him (or other emeriti) step by step when doing new
> uploads
> of those packages. Thus the uploaders list would better reflect the list of
> people to contact first when having questions about the package.
Hi,
I just got a delivery failed response after contacting all uploaders listed in
libpg-java. Arnaud Vandyck changed his status to emeritus in march but is
still listed in many java packages as uploader:
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=av...@debian.org
I propose to remove him (or
Hi,
Solr in testing has version 1.4.0, released 09/Nov. Current version of
upstream Solr is 1.4.1, released 10/Jun. I didn't manage to work as much on
the Solr packaging as I'd have liked to.
I'd recommend to remove Solr from Squeeze, because:
- It's already outdated a year
Your message dated Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:17:12 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#227594: fixed in java-common 0.36
has caused the Debian Bug report #227594,
regarding [PROPOSAL] Remove binfmt_misc, specify JARs for programs
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
Hi,
I will remove the following wiki pages next week if nobody objects.
They have been unmaintained for several years now.
http://wiki.debian.org/ApplicationClasspath
http://wiki.debian.org/ClasspathDependencies
http://wiki.debian.org/Classpath_unit_description
http://wiki.debian.org
Le lundi 17 août 2009 15:41:11, Barry deFreese a écrit :
> Onkar Shinde wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Barry deFreese
wrote:
> >>> Bumping this to serious now since jikes has been removed from the
> >>> archive.
> >>
> >> Thi
Onkar Shinde wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Barry deFreese wrote:
Bumping this to serious now since jikes has been removed from the archive.
This broken package cannot be built with any jdom version that is
availabl
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Torsten Werner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Barry deFreese wrote:
>> Bumping this to serious now since jikes has been removed from the archive.
>
> This broken package cannot be built with any jdom version that is
> available in unstable. That is why I
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Barry deFreese wrote:
> Bumping this to serious now since jikes has been removed from the archive.
This broken package cannot be built with any jdom version that is
available in unstable. That is why I vote for removing it. Does
anybody object?
Cheers,
Torsten
-
On Dec 12, 2007 9:10 AM, Eric Lavarde - Debian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assume Groovy 1.0 :-)
No 1.5.
> I think it would be acceptable as a first step to have groovy 1.0 packaged
> with the dependencies already available.
1.5 looks easier, because it does not need radeox.
Cheers,
Torsten
Hi Torsten,
Torsten Werner said:
> Debian's groovy 0.1 currently FTBFS because libmockobject-java has
> been removed from sid, which it is broken by itself. Groovy 1.0 needs
> radeox which is not packaged (yet) but I had some discussions with
> upstream. I'll check the brand new version 1.5 ASAP.
On Dec 11, 2007 11:48 PM, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/12/07 at 22:31 +0100, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> > I kindly object to having groovy removed! I absolutely need it for the next
> > FreeMind release, that I expect to get in Debian at last!
>
> He is. The package has been orphane
On 11/12/07 at 22:31 +0100, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I kindly object to having groovy removed! I absolutely need it for the next
> FreeMind release, that I expect to get in Debian at last!
>
> In response to Marcus (Better), I looked a while ago in groovy and there
> were still some packages
Hi,
I kindly object to having groovy removed! I absolutely need it for the
next FreeMind release, that I expect to get in Debian at last!
In response to Marcus (Better), I looked a while ago in groovy and there
were still some packages missing, but, in deed, doing a better job than
currently
Paul Wise wrote:
> Perhaps people on the debian-java list should be given the chance to
> adopt or fix groovy or give an opinion on it's usefulness? CCing them.
Groovy is emerging as an important new language for the Java platform, and
would be very useful to have in Debian. Of course the package
On Dec 10, 2007 7:14 AM, Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It was reported to the Security Team, that groovy embeds a lot of packages,
> > several of them security-sensitive:
> > Since it's in contrib, it's not security-supported, but given the state of
> > it (outdated,
> > hard
On 7/2/07, Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/1/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > The RC bug has been closed, but moving argouml, libgef-java and
> > arbortext-catalog to xerces2 should be done. And then, remove xer
On 7/1/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> The RC bug has been closed, but moving argouml, libgef-java and
> arbortext-catalog to xerces2 should be done. And then, remove xerces1.
Care to file some bugs? :)
OK, I'll do that asap ;-)
--
Arnau
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> The RC bug has been closed, but moving argouml, libgef-java and
> arbortext-catalog to xerces2 should be done. And then, remove xerces1.
Care to file some bugs? :)
Marcus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
The RC bug has been closed, but moving argouml, libgef-java and
arbortext-catalog to xerces2 should be done. And then, remove xerces1.
On 4/12/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
popcon reports 516 installs, versus 22756 for libxerces2-java. For the
dependents, there are 172 of a
popcon reports 516 installs, versus 22756 for libxerces2-java. For the
dependents, there are 172 of argouml, 222 of libgef-java and 67 of
arbortext-catalog, so apparently some people did install it separately.
Nevertheless I don't think it makes sense to keep it in lenny.
Marcus
--
To UNSUBSC
Hi,
I was looking at some bug reports and found one about xerces-j (remove
uploaders). I was not able to build it (#418841). Also, last upstream
upload is "13-Oct-2003 10:38". Only argouml (#418864), libgef-java
(#418865) and arbortext-catalog(#418844) depends on it. (I discovered
Hi,
commons-daemon is currently in the "Dep-Wait: kaffe-pthreads" state. Since the
package no longer build-depends on kaffe, it should be possible to build it
now.
Thanks,
Marcus
pgp1MXj4fNtv9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
I believe that commons-daemon should be built for the s390 architecture, as it
is for all the other architectures. Please remove it from the "not-for-us"
state.
Thanks,
Marcus
pgp8S6YFffMOr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
FYI.
--- Begin Message ---
Topics:
Bug#307284: ftp.debian.org: please remove xml-soap, outdated
Bug#307288: ftp.debian.org: please remove lib-saxon-java binary package
Bug#307335: ftp.debian.org: please remove libservlet2.2-java
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Package
Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:45:19 -0500,
Barry Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> [...]
> | So what do you think about a removal of tomcat3 and libservlet2.2-java?
> [...]
> Arnaud,
> ~My vote would be to get rid of those and to also move away from
> Tomcat 4 as soon as pos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
[...]
| So what do you think about a removal of tomcat3 and libservlet2.2-java?
[...]
Arnaud,
~My vote would be to get rid of those and to also move away from
Tomcat 4 as soon as possible. The proprietary Sun classes in its so
Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:31:48 +0100,
Wolfgang Baer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was looking at libservlet2.2-java and it's not build using cdbs yet!
>> Also, this library is IMHO deprecated. We have libservlet2.3 for Tomcat4
>> and we should have Tomcat5 (with libse
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Hi,
I was looking at libservlet2.2-java and it's not build using cdbs yet!
Also, this library is IMHO deprecated. We have libservlet2.3 for Tomcat4
and we should have Tomcat5 (with libservlet2.4) soon (I promise I'll
work on it soon).
So what do you think about a removal of to
Hi,
I was looking at libservlet2.2-java and it's not build using cdbs yet!
Also, this library is IMHO deprecated. We have libservlet2.3 for Tomcat4
and we should have Tomcat5 (with libservlet2.4) soon (I promise I'll
work on it soon).
So what do you think about a removal of tomcat3 and libservlet
Hi.
> Applications must provide one or more executable wrapper script(s) in
> /usr/bin. They must run without specific environment variables (see
> Policy 10.9), for instance JAVA_HOME or CLASSPATH. They must respect the
> Policy rules for executables (for instance a manual page per executable
Package: java-common
Version: 0.22
Severity: wishlist
I propose to change the following paragraphs in section 2.3 of the
Debian Java policy
> Programs must have executable(s) in /usr/bin and be executable. They
> can be Java classes (using binfmt_misc) or wrappers. In any case, they
> must run with
ile to use, and
> > doesn't pick one itself). It was only filed this week. The other RC bug
> > has
> > been fixed. Please mark kaffe as not being removed. It's stupid to remove
> > it
> > because of one bug that's less than a week old.
>
> Agreed
xed. Please mark kaffe as not being removed. It's stupid to remove it
> because of one bug that's less than a week old.
Agreed!
I'm in the process of closing the bug on 1.0.5 but there is some
question as to how the problem should be solved. I can follow the
behavior of the Kaffe
On Sat, 10 May 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 11:30:04AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > Why is this package marked remove?
>
> Because it's been continually unreleasable.
>
> > Note bug 191866 was reported May 4th and according to
>
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 11:30:04AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Why is this package marked remove?
Because it's been continually unreleasable.
> Note bug 191866 was reported May 4th and according to
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=kaffe there *was* one
On Fri, 9 May 2003, BugScan reporter wrote:
> Bug stamp-out list for May 9 06:09 (CST)
>
> Total number of release-critical bugs: 785
> Number that will disappear after removing packages marked [REMOVE]: 18
[...]
> Package: kaffe (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Ean R. Schuessler
Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: 20030214
Severity: serious
Packages: jdk1.1, jdk1.1-native, jdk1.1-dev jdk1.1-native-dev
They're non-free, they're buggy because the ftp-masters refused to
even look at an upload for over six months, and I have no enthusiasm
for continuing to pursue support for Su
Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: 20030214
Severity: serious
Packages: jdk1.1, jdk1.1-native, jdk1.1-dev jdk1.1-native-dev
They're non-free, they're buggy because the ftp-masters refused to
even look at an upload for over six months, and I have no enthusiasm
for continuing to pursue support for Su
Original Message
Subject: Re: .deb files for JAVA 1.4 (09-Okt-2002 15:54)
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wednesday 09 October 2002 15:36, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
> > From: Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: .deb files for JAVA 1.4
> >
Original Message
Subject: Re: .deb files for JAVA 1.4 (09-Okt-2002 15:54)
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wednesday 09 October 2002 15:36, Takashi Okamoto wrote:
> > From: Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: .deb files for JAVA 1.4
>
65 matches
Mail list logo
