Hi,
Oh, thank you for providing a patch for a quite annoying bug
Would it be possible to add a header to the patch, so that it is
possible to see where it came from and why, e.g.
---cut--
D
--- Original Message ---
On Wednesday, April 19th, 2023 at 09:18, Thorsten Glaser
wrote:
> Besides, what’s compatible? Some things may run with an older/newer
> JRE but others won’t.
If I follow this line of thinking, it means:
* You should not depend on java11-runtime-headless virtua
On 2023-04-19 10:22, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023, Per Lundberg wrote:
wanted to share it with you as well. One option would be to include this in
Debian's set of local JDK patches
Shouldn’t this be added to 11 as well? Apparently, both are affected.
Good point. Yes, it should
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023, Per Lundberg wrote:
> A short update on this. This is a known regression in more recent versions of
> Java: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8226919
>
> One of my colleagues (thanks, Sebastian!) managed to workaround this by
> patching the JDK 17 sources to make it use plai
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023, Loïc Rouchon wrote:
>targets the lowest installed JVM which version is greater or equals to
I’m very much not fond of this approach, because who’s to say you
want the lowest?
I’d rather have the local admin or invoking user specify the version
to use if the default version i
5 matches
Mail list logo
