Re: RFS: plexus-compiler/1.9.2-2 - [UPLOADED]

2014-01-21 Thread tony mancill
On 01/21/2014 03:35 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking for a sponsor to upload the latest update of > plexus-compiler. This update fixes a warning when building Maven based > packages: > > [WARNING] POM for > 'org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-compiler-api:pom:debian:runtime' is invalid

RFS: plexus-compiler/1.9.2-2

2014-01-21 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Hi all, I'm looking for a sponsor to upload the latest update of plexus-compiler. This update fixes a warning when building Maven based packages: [WARNING] POM for 'org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-compiler-api:pom:debian:runtime' is invalid. This is caused by a non versioned dependency in the poms, t

Re: putting bouncycastle 1.49 into backports?

2014-01-21 Thread Daniel Pocock
On 21/01/14 11:27, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 21/01/2014 11:09, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > >> When you say creating separate binary packages, do you mean creating >> packages that have the version in the name such as >> >> libbcprov1.49-java.deb(1.49) >> >> libbcprov-java.deb (existing 1.44

RE: [jitsi-dev] putting bouncycastle 1.49 into backports?

2014-01-21 Thread Ingo Bauersachs
> Jitsi doesn't have a versioned dependency on this so it would hopefully > be happy with the 1.44 version though and I think that would look better > than having libbcprov1.49-java packages floating about. Then this should get versioned, we definitely fail to compile with older versions. The only

Re: putting bouncycastle 1.49 into backports?

2014-01-21 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 21/01/2014 11:09, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > When you say creating separate binary packages, do you mean creating > packages that have the version in the name such as > > libbcprov1.49-java.deb(1.49) > > libbcprov-java.deb (existing 1.44 in wheezy) Yes exactly. And the package would

Re: putting bouncycastle 1.49 into backports?

2014-01-21 Thread Daniel Pocock
On 20/01/14 13:14, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Backporting bouncycastle to wheezy is going to cause a lot of troubles > because the version 1.49 breaks a lot of reverse dependencies. See > #687694 for a glimpse of the work that was involved in the transition to > this new version. > > A