On 2013-05-22 17:31, tony mancill wrote: > [...] > > Hi Niels, > > I appreciate your feedback. I guess Java7 should be considered a > "transition" and thus should go through the Release Team. >
At least that is what I suspect. > IMO, I don't think we need 100% success on the rebuild - i.e. I'd prefer > that we get everyone building and uploading with Java7 as soon as is > reasonable. That is, I think some breakage is acceptable and will help > us decide what is important to get working with Java7 and what is too > old or crufty and should be removed. > Perhaps, but nothing is preventing us from getting rid of old/crufty stuff already now. At the moment we got 32 unfixed bugs and that presumes a second rebuild will not find any new issues. > Can you edify me about how to coordinate/request the rebuild? > Basically I just had a chat with lucas asking him to rebuild all java packages in sid with default-jdk from experimental. As I recall we had to provide a list of packages (I think I used "dak rm -nR java-common" or "dak rm -nR -b default-jdk" as basis for that [on ries.d.o]). Last time we had some failures because the plugin was defaulting to Java6 at the time and that tripped out B-D resolution for some reason (don't remember why - but it caused false-positive build failures). Perhaps we could move the icedtea-plugin package to java-common first and then do the rebuild to avoid these. I believe doko was supporting the move of that package so we only had one package for all "defaults". > I will dcut the upload and will clean up (delete) the tag in svn/pkg-java. > > Thank you, > tony > ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/519cf133.3000...@thykier.net
