On Sunday 28 March 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi
>
> I just had a conversation with Damien Raude-Morvan and Matthew Johnson
> about the strict dependencies between javadoc packages. We considered
> lowering the requirement from a Depends to a Recommends.
>
> The rationale is that the javadoc is
Hi
I just had a conversation with Damien Raude-Morvan and Matthew Johnson
about the strict dependencies between javadoc packages. We considered
lowering the requirement from a Depends to a Recommends.
The rationale is that the javadoc is functional even without the docs it
links too and it allows
Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
> Le vendredi 26 mars 2010 22:15:18, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>> How do these suggestions sound?
> [...]
>> Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests,
>> if these are present. The build &may; ignore test
>> failures.
>
> This one is fine for
Hi,
Niels Thykier wrote:
Eric Lavarde wrote:
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
one more thing: we could actually also get rid of all javaX-runtime
where X
< 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only less than
java6?
Package: gcj-
Niels Thykier wrote:
> I will just give a quick summery, in case you lost the overview of this
> debate.
>
> Currently there are three patches active:
> * p1_trival_changes.patch
Applied and committed to the SVN.
> * p2_fosdem06_r3.patch
No change here (yet). The JUnit phrase needs to be modi
Hi Niels,
Le vendredi 26 mars 2010 22:15:18, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> How do these suggestions sound?
[...]
> Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests,
> if these are present. The build &may; ignore test
> failures.
This one is fine for me.
--
Damien Raude-Morvan - http://www.d
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>>> I think we are missing the point here; for instance, I've mostly
>>> disabled junit tests because they depend on not-yet-packaged or even
>>> non-DFSG-free libraries. I think both formulations are too oriented
Eric Lavarde wrote:
> Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>>> one more thing: we could actually also get rid of all javaX-runtime
>>> where X
>>> < 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only less than
>>> java6?
>>
>> Package: gcj-4.4-j
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
one more thing: we could actually also get rid of all javaX-runtime where X
< 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only less than
java6?
Package: gcj-4.4-jre
Provides: java-runtime, java1-runtime,
Le vendredi 26 mars 2010 21:21:05, Vincent Fourmond a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> > one more thing: we could actually also get rid of all javaX-runtime where
> > X < 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only less
> > than java6?
>
> Package:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> one more thing: we could actually also get rid of all javaX-runtime where X
> < 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only less than
> java6?
Package: gcj-4.4-jre
Provides: java-runtime, java1-runtime, java2-runtime, java5-r
Hi,
one more thing: we could actually also get rid of all javaX-runtime
where X < 6, or is there any package left in Debian that provides only
less than java6?
Backport might be a concern, but then sun-java5 is not present in older
versions than sun-java6, so...
Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Hello,
Matthew Johnson wrote:
But, from your patches, I understand that javaX-runtime survives and
that we add default-jre/jdk (default-j) into the picture, which,
depending on the platform, provides either cp-j or java-j, because they
pull gcj-j or openjdk-j.
IMO javaX-runtime should be
On Fri Mar 26 13:09, Thomas Koch wrote:
> There are two questions I had about Debian-Java unit tests and which I
> propose
> to answer in the policy:
>
> - Is there any time limit, how long unit test suites may take?
Not specifically, but it's considered bad form if it's the majority of the
bu
There are two questions I had about Debian-Java unit tests and which I propose
to answer in the policy:
- Is there any time limit, how long unit test suites may take?
- Is there anything I've to take care of, what a unit test may not do on a
build server? Like accessing the internet, connectin
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> I think we are missing the point here; for instance, I've mostly
>> disabled junit tests because they depend on not-yet-packaged or even
>> non-DFSG-free libraries. I think both formulations are too oriented
>> towards: "junit tests sho
On Fri Mar 26 11:24, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> > Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests, if these are present.
> > *However, these tests &should; not lead to build failures unless
> > Maintainer is confident enough that tests are stable between builds*
>
> I think we are missing th
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Damien Raude-Morvan
wrote:
> Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests, if these are present.
> *However, these tests &mustnot; lead to build failures.*
>
> For some library packages (ie. commons-maths), I'm confidence enough to
> enable unit
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:32:50 +0100, Niels Thykier
wrote:
> Currently there are three patches active:
> * p1_trival_changes.patch
> * p2_fosdem06_r3.patch
> * p3_fosdem06-gcj.patch
I'm OK with all three patches, except one small addition from
"p2_fosdem06_r3.patch" :
Programs and librari
On Fri Mar 26 09:42, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
> I have some problems to understand the resulting document, not knowing
> what the baseline is, but after reading through the patches, I think
> that the new policy doesn't address the main problem which is the fact
> that we have 2 inco
Hi Niels,
I have some problems to understand the resulting document, not knowing
what the baseline is, but after reading through the patches, I think
that the new policy doesn't address the main problem which is the fact
that we have 2 incompatible runtime (and compiling/building)
environment
I will just give a quick summery, in case you lost the overview of this
debate.
Currently there are three patches active:
* p1_trival_changes.patch
* p2_fosdem06_r3.patch
* p3_fosdem06-gcj.patch
I just noticed that my email client have behaved weirdly when I sent the
last two and have made all
22 matches
Mail list logo
