Hi Emmanuel
On 2022-10-17 01:28:21 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 16/10/2022 à 17:10, Philipp Kern a écrit :
>
> > While arm64/armhf remains unfixed (and could have its own t-p-u upload
> > based on the +0 version plus Ubuntu's patch), there's also a question if
> > a newer version would actua
Hi Emmanuel,
On 17.10.22 01:28, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 16/10/2022 à 17:10, Philipp Kern a écrit :
While arm64/armhf remains unfixed (and could have its own t-p-u upload
based on the +0 version plus Ubuntu's patch), there's also a question if
a newer version would actually fix the issue.
I t
Le 16/10/2022 à 17:10, Philipp Kern a écrit :
While arm64/armhf remains unfixed (and could have its own t-p-u upload
based on the +0 version plus Ubuntu's patch), there's also a question if
a newer version would actually fix the issue.
I talked to Sebastian on IRC and we agreed that I'd upload
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 1013009 + pending
Bug #1013009 [src:openjfx] openjfx: ftbfs with GCC-12
Added tag(s) pending.
> tag 1004638 + pending
Bug #1004638 [src:openjfx] openjfx: FTBFS with ffmpeg 5.0
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please co
tag 1013009 + pending
tag 1004638 + pending
thanks
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 03:53:13PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I think it's still worthwhile to upload this build.
While arm64/armhf remains unfixed (and could have its own t-p-u upload
based on the +0 version plus Ubuntu's patch), there's also
Hey,
On 16.10.22 14:02, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
I was looking into applying Ubuntu's patch to Debian. It still has the
issue that the builds on arm64 and armhf fail. Reverting to 11.0.11+0
seems to fix that.
So we definitely need the g++-11 dependency as well. I guess I was
misled by the mo
On 2022-10-16 14:02:12 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2022-10-16 11:42:40 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:23:39PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > > openjfx FTBFS with ffmpeg 5.0 (available in experimental):
> > [...]
> >
> > It looks like even upstream openjfx
On 2022-10-16 11:42:40 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:23:39PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > openjfx FTBFS with ffmpeg 5.0 (available in experimental):
> [...]
>
> It looks like even upstream openjfx (moved to [1]) is still not
> source-compatible with ffmpeg 5.0. I
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:23:39PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> openjfx FTBFS with ffmpeg 5.0 (available in experimental):
[...]
It looks like even upstream openjfx (moved to [1]) is still not
source-compatible with ffmpeg 5.0. I could not find a bug in Oracle's
Java bug tracker about this e
9 matches
Mail list logo
