On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:54:46PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
> I have finished my work on osgi-annotation and updated osgi-core to
> version 6.0.0 and felix-framework to 4.6.0. I suggest to upload
> osgi-annotation to NEW and the rest to experimental as soon as the
> package got accepted by
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:18:02PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have pushed osgi-annotation to
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/osgi-annotation.git
>
> and I am looking for someone who would like to sponsor this package now.
>
Hi Markus,
I'll take care of it.
Cheers,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Martin Steghöfer wrote:
> Hi Andreas!
>
> Andreas Tille wrote:
> >Does anybody honestly think that the vanished author who does not
> >seem to care for his very old code at all will mind about our
> >perfectly theoretical discussion?
>
> Very, very likely
Hi Andreas!
Andreas Tille wrote:
Does anybody honestly think that the vanished author who does not seem
to care for his very old code at all will mind about our perfectly
theoretical discussion?
Very, very likely he won't. But if the fact that the copyright owner
won't sue us is the relevant
On 22.02.2015 00:40, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 08:28:26PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>>
>> Therefore I intend to file an ITP bug for osgi-annotation-java and
>> update osgi-core and osgi-compendium to 6.0.0.
>>
>> Any objections?
>
> None.
>
> If you need sponsoring for
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:14:15PM +0100, Martin Steghöfer wrote:
> Hi Thorsten!
>
> Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >Can you, or anyone really, give some detail on what exactly is the
> >problem here (which files)?
>
> I'm sorry for not having been more specific from the beginning.
> Given that you had
Hi Thorsten!
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Can you, or anyone really, give some detail on what exactly is the
problem here (which files)?
I'm sorry for not having been more specific from the beginning. Given
that you had brought up the interface aspect yourself, I thought we were
on the same page.
On 23.02.2015 18:04, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Markus Koschany
>
> * Package name: osgi-annotation
> Version : 6.0.0
> Upstream Author : OSGi Alliance
> * URL : http://www.osgi.org
> * License : Apache-2.0
> Programm
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Martin Steghöfer wrote:
> Sure, replacing the interfaces with our own ones (or the free ones from
> freehep) and patching all reverse dependencies can work. But as you've
> probably guessed from my choice of words ("crippling"), presenting an altered
> interface to all current
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Martin Steghöfer wrote:
the interface issue again. Because no matter how well we replace the
implementation, if we can't use the interfaces or have to "cripple" them, we
don't have a fix.
We can just reimplement them, since we control all packages
tha
Hi Thorsten!
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Martin Steghöfer wrote:
So is it the official Debian position
There cannot be an official Debian position on this,
either it’s so or not, based on law ;-)
Yes, it's the law, but I doubt that the law mentions Java interfaces
explicitly
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Martin Steghöfer wrote:
> the interface issue again. Because no matter how well we replace the
> implementation, if we can't use the interfaces or have to "cripple" them, we
> don't have a fix.
We can just reimplement them, since we control all packages
that go into Debian an
Hi,
2015-02-24 14:27 GMT+01:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> Emmanuel Bourg dixit:
>
>>This issue only affects non arch all packages depending on antlr, I
>>don't think there are many of them and fixing the issue with an extra
>>command line parameter is trivial.
>
> Hmm.
>
> udd=> SELECT source, version, a
Emmanuel Bourg dixit:
>This issue only affects non arch all packages depending on antlr, I
>don't think there are many of them and fixing the issue with an extra
>command line parameter is trivial.
Hmm.
udd=> SELECT source, version, architecture FROM sources WHERE release='sid' AND
build_depend
Hi Tim,
Thanks for taking care and updating this package.
Coincidentally, during last night, jnr-constants 0.8.6 was
accepted in unstable.
So, I think we should focus on that package and only work on
libconstantine-java in order to remove it and replace it
with jnr-constants now is finally in th
Le 24/02/2015 13:23, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> Bálint Réczey dixit:
>
>> Not that I am lazy but I think instead of patching every package using
>> antlr antlr itself should be patched to use higher default timeouts on
>> slow platforms.
>
> can we please get some sort of feedback on this?
> Re
Dear Java maintainers,
Bálint Réczey dixit:
>Not that I am lazy but I think instead of patching every package using
>antlr antlr itself should be patched to use higher default timeouts on
>slow platforms.
can we please get some sort of feedback on this?
Revisiting because the next forked-daapd b
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Martin Steghöfer wrote:
> So is it the official Debian position
There cannot be an official Debian position on this,
either it’s so or not, based on law ;-)
> that interfaces are not protected by copyright law? I'm not an expert
IANAL either, but interoperability is a big t
18 matches
Mail list logo
