On 06/09/13 21:55, Robert Millan wrote: > The way I see it, as things stand now it makes a lot more sense to > bypass default-jdk in order to get things working...
What do you mean by that? To tighten the build-dependencies of eclipse and others, that can't build with gcj? I think the risk is that openjdk-7 could be removed from kfreebsd-* in sid at the request of the maintainer, if we're unable to keep it building+working. We may then lose packages that FTBFS without it (but if we don't change, we'd never have had them in the first place). Other packages should fall back to gcj and still be okay. It may be as much of a problem whichever way we do this. So probably updating java-defaults isn't harmful in itself, and is the easiest thing we can do right now. It also seems like the most thorough way of testing openjdk-7 on kfreebsd-*. Rene Engelhard has been waiting on such a change[0] and Sylvestre Ledru offered to do this for us[1]. [0]: http://lists.debian.org/20130822094156.gi32...@rene-engelhard.de [1]: http://lists.debian.org/520fb6d1.5060...@debian.org It seems we could go ahead without treating this like a transition. I was thinking we may want to ask the Release Team for rebuilds of some already-built packages to use the new java-defaults. Even if that's refused, it's still not a problem. And given the risk of maybe losing openjdk-7 or otherwise having to go back to gcj, maybe we shouldn't bother doing that at all. So, what do you say we just go ahead with changing java-defaults? Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- 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/522a4813.8020...@pyro.eu.org
