Bug#593627: marked as done (java-common: please use openjdk as default jdk on powerpcspe)

Your message dated Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:17:41 + with message-id and subject line Bug#593627: fixed in java-common 0.40 has caused the Debian Bug report #593627, regarding java-common: please use openjdk as default jdk on powerpcspe to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the probl

java-common_0.40_amd64.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: default-jdk-doc_0.40_all.deb to main/j/java-common/default-jdk-doc_0.40_all.deb default-jdk_1.6-40_amd64.deb to main/j/java-common/default-jdk_1.6-40_amd64.deb default-jre-headless_1.6-40_amd64.deb to main/j/java-common/default-jre-headless_1.6-40_amd64.deb default-jre_1.6-40_amd

Processing of java-common_0.40_amd64.changes

java-common_0.40_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: java-common_0.40.dsc java-common_0.40.tar.gz java-common_0.40_all.deb default-jdk-doc_0.40_all.deb default-jre_1.6-40_amd64.deb default-jre-headless_1.6-40_amd64.deb default-jdk_1.6-40_amd64.deb

Re: RFS: gmetrics (new package, needed to package CodeNarc)

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Torsten Werner wrote: > me too :) . I've uploaded the package now. BTW package names like > libgmetrics-groovy-java do not really make sense. This is not your > fault of course. I think we should change the policy after the squeeze > release. Yes, I know. Every ti

Re: RFS: gant (new upstream release)

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > I'm looking for a sponsor for this new release of > gant. uploaded Cheers, Torsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Re: RFS: gmetrics (new package, needed to package CodeNarc)

Hi Miguel, On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > I could not reproduce this problem. me too :) . I've uploaded the package now. BTW package names like libgmetrics-groovy-java do not really make sense. This is not your fault of course. I think we should change the policy afte

unblock: java-common/0.40

reopen 592697 thanks Hi, thanks for unblocking 0.39 but my upload did not work as expected because the arch any packages got downgraded on mips. I have introduced an epoch for the arch any packages now. The upload includes the switch to openjdk on powerpcsce as discussed at

Re: jarsigner error: incorrect magic (need openjdk)

* Fathi Boudra | 2010-01-06 15:00:41 [+0100]: >About option 3, it means default-jdk build-dependency removal on hppa and hurd >architectures so all jars won't be built/shipped on these architectures too. I reopenend that bug due to the duct tape part here, hope that is okay. Excluding "a few" ar

Re: Java webapps and configuration files

Matthew Johnson writes: > On Sun Aug 22 17:41, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Matthew Johnson writes: >>> I'm not sure that you need to ship them as conffiles though - lots of >>> package have this sort of thing in /usr/share/doc/$package/examples >>> (the jsp) - so you would build a default war from th

Re: Clojure versioning

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:23:58PM +0530, Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am in the process of packaging Clojure 1.2 for Debian.  While > > doing so, I noticed that Clojure 1.1 AOT compiled packages, such as > > cloj

Re: Java webapps and configuration files

On Sun Aug 22 17:41, Russ Allbery wrote: > Matthew Johnson writes: > > > I'm not sure that you need to ship them as conffiles though - lots of > > package have this sort of thing in /usr/share/doc/$package/examples (the > > jsp) - so you would build a default war from those (on install?) and > >

Bug#594027: ITP: lucene3 -- Lucene is a full-text search engine for the Java(TM) programming language.

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Jan-Pascal van Best" * Package name: lucene3 Version : 3.0.2 Upstream Author : Doug Cutting , Erik Hatcher , Otis Gospodnetic et.al. Copyright holder: The Apache Software Foundation * URL : http://lucene.apache.org/java/ * L

Re: RFS: service-wrapper-java [2nd try]

Rémi Debay: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "service-wrapper-java". > * Package name : service-wrapper-java Hi Rémi, do you know by change, what the difference is between service-wrapper-java and jsvc[1] (which already is in Debian). I need a daemon wrapper my proje

Re: RFS: service-wrapper-java [2nd try]

Hi Thomas, I tried JSVC to run the software i am packaging (I2P router : #448638) and I managed to make it run. But the fact is the upstreams authors used the service-wrapper-java on their router source (as library import) and it is strictly needed on the web configuring tool. Honestly, for what