On 02/08/16 19:48, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 01/08/16 23:26, Markus Koschany wrote: >> On 01.08.2016 23:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> On 31/07/16 19:41, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Currently, icedtea-plugin depends on icedtea-6-plugin, i.e. Java6. Given >>>>> openjdk-6 is unsupported, we should change it to depend on >>>>> icedtea-7-plugin >>>>> instead. See the attached source debdiff (the control file is >>>>> autogenerated). >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> If no-one objects, I will upload that soon. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It looks good to me. >>> >>> Markus said on IRC that another option was to mark icedtea-plugin and >>> icedtea-6-plugin as unsupported. However, I think we should only do that for >>> icedtea-6-plugin, and update the metapackage to depend on Java7. >> >> Yes, it wouldn't hurt to update the dependency package icedtea-plugin. >> As far as I know it has no important reverse-dependencies though, for >> instance OpenJDk 6 only suggests it. So we could also just mark it as >> unsupported but I leave the decision up to you. > > I think icedtea-plugin should be kept updated and point to the supported > version, so that people can keep it installed and automatically get the next > supported version when/if it is changed again, whether in Wheezy or in future > releases. > > Since the change is simple, I'll look at uploading it soon.
Uploaded. I'm not sure whether this deserves a DLA. Probably not, as openjdk-6 is already marked as unsupported, and there already was [1]. Though I could send something similar to that, without a DLA number, if that was deemed convenient. Thoughts, anyone? Cheers, Emilio [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2016/05/msg00007.html
