On 06/08/16 10:38, Markus Koschany wrote: > On 06.08.2016 10:18, Guido Günther wrote: >> Hi, >> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:49:33PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> 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? >> >> I was under the impression that every upload to wheezy-security gets a >> DLA since it's a security archive. That's why I e.g. put out DLAs for >> enigmail and mozilla-devscripts although these weren't security >> updates per se but rebuilds due to the new icedove. > > Now that the decision has been made to update icedtea-plugin I agree > that it needs some sort of announcement to inform LTS users. I would > have mentioned it as part of the OpenJDK 7 announcement as a side note > but a standalone DLA will also do.
ftr, I have sent an announcement, which was reviewed on irc. Cheers, Emilio
