Package: libjackson-json-java
Version: 1.9.2-9
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
The old homepage http://jackson.codehaus.org seems to be expired.
There is no domain name by that name anymore and even whois can't
find it while https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson seems to be the
home nowadays. It
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 01:22:21AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > [ERROR] The project com.itextpdf:itextpdf:5.5.13
> > (/build/libitext5-java-5.5.13/itext/pom.xml) has 1 error
> > [ERROR] Non-resolvable parent POM for com.itextpdf:itextpdf:5.5.13:
> > Cannot access central (https://r
FYI: The status of the h2database source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.4.197-1
Current version: 1.4.197-2
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will
On 25/08/2018 17:44, Andreas Tille wrote:
> No, it is different:
> [ERROR] The project com.itextpdf:itextpdf:5.5.13
> (/build/libitext5-java-5.5.13/itext/pom.xml) has 1 error
> [ERROR] Non-resolvable parent POM for com.itextpdf:itextpdf:5.5.13:
> Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.a
Your message dated Sat, 25 Aug 2018 22:34:54 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#906384: fixed in lucene-solr 3.6.2+dfsg-14
has caused the Debian Bug report #906384,
regarding lucene-solr: FTBFS in buster/sid
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt w
Your message dated Sat, 25 Aug 2018 22:34:54 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#904063: fixed in lucene-solr 3.6.2+dfsg-14
has caused the Debian Bug report #904063,
regarding solr-tomcat: solr does not start due to NullPointerException
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 23:23:24 +0200
Source: lucene-solr
Binary: liblucene3-java liblucene3-contrib-java liblucene3-java-doc
libsolr-java solr-common solr-tomcat solr-jetty
Architecture: source
Version: 3.6.2+dfsg-14
Distri
lucene-solr_3.6.2+dfsg-14_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
lucene-solr_3.6.2+dfsg-14.dsc
lucene-solr_3.6.2+dfsg-14.debian.tar.xz
lucene-solr_3.6.2+dfsg-14_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
_
Am 25.08.2018 um 23:27 schrieb Markus Koschany:
> Control: tags -1 pending
>
> The FTBFS was caused by the latest upgrade of libwoodstox-java. The jar
> files were renamed and could not be found anymore.
>
> I am quite sure this is related to #904063 somehow. Once #906447 is
> resolved I could t
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 20:50:14 +0300 Vassilis Virvilis
wrote:
[...]
> With java8 installed I am getting the following. Isn't this the sign that is
> compiled again against java9/java10?
>
> 2018-08-17 16:20:46] [crit] java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
> java.nio.ByteBuffer.limit(I)Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 pending
Bug #906384 [src:lucene-solr] lucene-solr: FTBFS in buster/sid
Added tag(s) pending.
--
906384: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906384
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
__
This is the maintaine
Control: tags -1 pending
The FTBFS was caused by the latest upgrade of libwoodstox-java. The jar
files were renamed and could not be found anymore.
I am quite sure this is related to #904063 somehow. Once #906447 is
resolved I could try to verify this assumption.
Markus
signature.asc
Descript
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 04:48:05PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
> Do you get the same build failure with the new version?
No, it is different:
...
[INFO] Scanning for projects...
[ERROR] [ERROR] Some problems were encountered while processing the POMs:
[FATAL] Non-resolvable parent POM for com
Definitely it is related with new file name pattern adopted by Sun. I
don't know much about the script, but I add the following name pattern
matching to usr/share/java-package/oracle-jre.sh and it works:
# Update to match with version 10 and newer
if [[ $archive_name =~ ^jre-([0-9]+)\.([0-9]+)
On 25/08/2018 09:00, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I realised that there is a new upstream version, fixed the watch file in
> Git and tried to build the package. Unfortunately the build fails as
> well.
Do you get the same build failure with the new version?
Emmanuel Bourg
__
This is the maintainer a
Hi,
I realised that there is a new upstream version, fixed the watch file in
Git and tried to build the package. Unfortunately the build fails as
well. I commited my attempt anyway and hope this small contribution
will help fixing the issue some more skilled Java developer than me.
Kind regards
16 matches
Mail list logo