On 17 April 2014 21:24, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Source: cadencii
> Version: 3.3.9+svn20110818.r1732-2
> Severity: important
> User: debian-java@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: openjdk-8-transition
A question: How feasible is it for us regular users to help you check
this stuff? What Debian would b
On 12 March 2014 14:33, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> For the record I pushed the latest version of tomcat7 to
> wheezy-backports. I do agree that uploading the new versions of Tomcat
> to fix security issues would be much better than backporting the changes
> to the version in stable. Tomcat is very s
On 19 February 2013 13:14, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> You have to run:
> J2SE_PACKAGE_LIBDIR=./lib ./make-jpkg
> java-package also works with the .tar.gz provided by Oracle.
This worked and I built a nice java7 deb.
I then tried installing it, and then tomcat6, and it does not attempt
to pull in
On 18 February 2013 17:38, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Could you give a try at this version of java-package please?
> https://github.com/ebourg/java-package
> I added the missing dependencies for Ubuntu.
./make-jpkg: line 220: get_architecture: command not found
Looks like common.sh is missing fro
On 18 February 2013 14:59, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Cedric Pineau reworked java-package last year. Could you try this
> version instead (or the one in the experimental repository) ?
> https://github.com/cedricpineau/java-package
That version doesn't claim to provide default-jre-headless either.
A quick question, before I proceed to shoot myself in the foot:
I'm using make-jpkg to turn Oracle Java into handrolled debs for our use.
I want to test Ubuntu tomcat6 (in Ubuntu 10.04). This tries to pull in
openjdk6. The reason is a dependency on default-jre-headless. I'd
rather it didn't do th
I would assume the recent JDK7 hole would also affect OpenJDK7, given
they're pretty much the same codebase.
But OpenJDK6 is based on OpenJDK7, cut down to pass JCK6. Has anyone
checked if OpenJDK6 is vulnerable?
- d.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a sub
On 28 November 2012 16:20, Julien Cristau wrote:
> OpenJDK Security support has always been a nightmare for the security
> team because there was no support from the maintainers. Security support
> s primarily the responsibility of the maintainer.
I understood the plan for OpenJDK 6 was that th
On 23 March 2012 12:06, Barry Hawkins wrote:
> Maven is pretty handy when you lay out your project using the conventions
> that Maven chooses, but getting used to Maven's Build Lifecycle[0] is often
> an adjustment. I often prefer Ant + Ivy, mostly because Ant is so
> straightforward and Ivy give
On 10 January 2012 20:38, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le mardi 10 janvier 2012 à 20:32 +0000, David Gerard a écrit :
>> Would you have to hand whatever scripts you used to maintain it? (And
>> are these releasable?)
> I don't understand your question.
> sun-java6
2012/1/10 Sylvestre Ledru :
> As the previous maintainer of sun-java6, I am willing to sponsor (and
> maintain) it.
Would you have to hand whatever scripts you used to maintain it? (And
are these releasable?)
- d.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
I've put a description of how I used Cédric's java-package to make a
deb of Oracle JDK 6u30:
http://reddragdiva.dreamwidth.org/574156.html
(I have noted Matthias' strong disapproval of parts of the patch.)
We're deploying this to the template for all our new Ubuntu VMs, so
I'm sure we'll discove
[to list as well as Russ!]
On 3 January 2012 19:17, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Gerard writes:
>> To clarify: these are binaries that the previous 6u26 packages linked
>> from /etc/alternatives, which running the present Oracle 6u30 JDK
>> through Cedric's java-pa
To clarify: these are binaries that the previous 6u26 packages linked
from /etc/alternatives, which running the present Oracle 6u30 JDK
through Cedric's java-package doesn't link.
On 3 January 2012 17:26, David Gerard wrote:
> It appears the following binaries in /usr/lib/jvm/j2
On 3 January 2012 13:08, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 January 2012 18:29, David Gerard wrote:
>> Me? No, I'm interested in current versions that haven't been packaged
>> because of Oracle taking back the licence :-)
>> I'll try it tomorrow (back at work) and w
On 2 January 2012 18:29, David Gerard wrote:
> 2012/1/2 Cédric Pineau :
>> I've put back support for oracle-java6 >= update10.
>> Do you need previous java6 releases to be supported too ?
> Me? No, I'm interested in current versions that haven't been pack
2012/1/2 Cédric Pineau :
> I've put back support for oracle-java6 >= update10.
> Do you need previous java6 releases to be supported too ?
Me? No, I'm interested in current versions that haven't been packaged
because of Oracle taking back the licence :-)
I'll try it tomorrow (back at work) an
2012/1/1 Cédric Pineau :
> Do you, debian developpers and java-package authors, think this "trimmed and
> renewed" version could be a new start for java-package ?
> Is it desirable for debian to offer a tool that ease the use of non free
> software like Oracle JVM ?
> (http://lists.debian.org/debi
On 31 December 2011 01:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
> While this doesn't directly solve your problem, the Debian package
> java-package was designed to do exactly what you're doing and is therefore
> under a clear license in that respect. Maybe it's worth taking a look at
> it and seeing if it can be
At work, we've just decided all our new hosting is Ubuntu 10.04 using
Sun Java. This was fine until Oracle declded to rescind the
distributor licenses. We do plan to move to OpenJDK, but only after
the utmost testing.
In the meantime, I'm hand-rolling a deb based on the Oracle download.
This proje
20 matches
Mail list logo
