On 26.05.2015 17:23, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello dear maintainer(s),
>
> the Debian LTS team would like to fix the security issues which are
> currently open in the Squeeze version of libapache-mod-jk:
> https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-8111
>
> Would you like to take care
Hi
Markus Koschany prepared updated package for libapache-mod-jk for
wheezy-security and jessie-security. If you run libapache-mod-jk in
production testing of the prepared packages would be very welcome. If
you find a problem introduced by updating to these packages, please
report the problem dire
On 2015-05-26 17:25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
>> recommendation is to declare that:
>>
>> * gcj-jdk is not considered a suitable Java implementation for our end
>>users nor for impleme
Le 26/05/2015 16:52, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
> I think we should decide what our Java baseline is and how it affects
> release archs_before_ changing this.
The best we can do I think is to identify the applications that should
work with GCJ (Ant and LibreOffice for example) and ensure their
depe
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
> recommendation is to declare that:
>
> * gcj-jdk is not considered a suitable Java implementation for our end
>users nor for implementing the default-java.
Please do not do that. Way
Hello dear maintainer(s),
the Debian LTS team would like to fix the security issues which are
currently open in the Squeeze version of libapache-mod-jk:
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-8111
Would you like to take care of this yourself? We are still understaffed so
any help is
On 2015-05-26 16:35, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
>> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
>> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
>> in Jessie and it is
On 2015-05-26 16:52, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
>> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
>> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Jav
On 2015-05-26 16:35, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
>> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
>> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
>> in Jessie and it is
Hi,
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:58:49PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
> in Jessie and it is reasonabl
Hi,
Markus Koschany wrote:
> I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
> "incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
> still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
> in Jessie and it is reasonable to update the check now.
>
> It seems t
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.31
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hello,
I think it is time to adjust the lintian warning about
"incompatible-java-bytecode-format". The current version of Lintian
still warns about Java 1.7 bytecode, however Java 1.7 is the default
in Jessie and it is reasonable to up
12 matches
Mail list logo
