Bug#820857: java-package: Generated JDK package should have higher priority than existing openjdk packages

2016-04-13 Thread Jan Henke
Package: java-package Version: 0.60 Severity: normal Given the following situation. I have openjdk-8-jdk installed from the archive. For work I need the Oracle JDK, so I download the *.tar.gz and create a debian package from it with java-package. I install the created package, so I have both the o

Re: Splitting the Java policy from java-common

2015-09-22 Thread Jan Henke
FAQ could also be moved later > to the wiki. > > What do you think? > > Emmanuel Bourg > Hi Emmanuel, sounds like good idea to me. I think documentation should preferably always in a separate package. No need to install the documentation bits on a productive system. Jan Henke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: failed kfreebsd-amd64 build of openjdk-8 8u66-b01-4

2015-09-20 Thread Jan Henke
Am 20.09.2015 um 16:21 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 20/09/2015 10:24, Jan Henke a écrit : > >> it looks like the opnejdk-8 has a bootstrap problem, since it cannot >> install the openjdk-8-jdk package (which does not exist in the archive >> yet for kfreebsd-*). >>

Re: failed kfreebsd-amd64 build of openjdk-8 8u66-b01-4

2015-09-20 Thread Jan Henke
e access right to manually build and upload the openjdk-8-jdk package, so the buildds can build it regularly from source? Best regards Jan Henke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: openjdk-*-jdk, depends on -jre instead of -jre-headless

2015-07-05 Thread Jan Henke
Am 05.07.2015 um 20:18 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 05/07/2015 09:11, Jan Henke a écrit : > >> I would like to open discussion, whether it is possible to make the jdk >> depend on the headless jre only. The full jre could be a recommends, so >> it does get install by def

openjdk-*-jdk, depends on -jre instead of -jre-headless

2015-07-05 Thread Jan Henke
recommends, so it does get install by default, but advanced users can choose to not install it. Best regards, Jan Henke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#786895: lintian: incompatible-java-bytecode-format warning needs update for Java 1.7

2015-05-27 Thread Jan Henke
Am 27.05.2015 um 16:06 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 27/05/2015 15:41, Jan Henke a écrit : > >> I think gcj serves one single purpose only at this point in time: >> Bootstrapping during the OpenJDK build. > This is no longer true with OpenJDK 8 unfortunately, Java 7 is now

Re: Bug#786895: lintian: incompatible-java-bytecode-format warning needs update for Java 1.7

2015-05-27 Thread Jan Henke
JDK, I also think gcj does not work as default-jdk either on those architectures. As much as it is sad to write this, I fully agree at this point Java should be dropped from those architectures without an OpenJDK build. It is better to have no installable default-jdk, than a silently broken JVM