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
Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> Personally I disagree here, openjdk-6 comes with a webplugin
> (icedtea6-plugin) that works very well for me.
>
Actually, you're right! The version in unstable does work for me. It
didn't work forme in the past. It was a good surprise :)
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http
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-
On 27.03.2010 01:24, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Mar 26 21:47, Eric Lavarde wrote:
OK, I'm not exactly enthusiastic, but I can live with this, as long as
the wording of the policy is adapted accordingly.
Why I'm not enthusiastic: should I manage to get into Debian yet another
Java runtime, wh
On 26.03.2010 23:03, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Niels Thykier wrote:
Personally I disagree here, openjdk-6 comes with a webplugin
(icedtea6-plugin) that works very well for me.
It may work with common Java applets but doesn't work well for
cryptographic stuff. Ask any french guy that pays his taxes
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:24:40PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Personally I disagree here, openjdk-6 comes with a webplugin
> (icedtea6-plugin) that works very well for me.
---end quoted text---
I didn't know about that one, thanks for the tip !
--
أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy)
Digital
On Fri Mar 26 21:47, Eric Lavarde wrote:
> OK, I'm not exactly enthusiastic, but I can live with this, as long as
> the wording of the policy is adapted accordingly.
>
> Why I'm not enthusiastic: should I manage to get into Debian yet another
> Java runtime, which is not compatible with either
Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> I use it to access my Web-bank which (to the best of my knowledge) is
> encrypted.
>
That won't help to pay my taxes online :)
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Personally I disagree here, openjdk-6 comes with a webplugin
>> (icedtea6-plugin) that works very well for me.
>>
>
> It may work with common Java applets but doesn't work well for
> cryptographic stuff. Ask any french guy that pays his taxes online :)
Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> Personally I disagree here, openjdk-6 comes with a webplugin
> (icedtea6-plugin) that works very well for me.
>
It may work with common Java applets but doesn't work well for
cryptographic stuff. Ask any french guy that pays his taxes online :)
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الد
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
> live with this, but it means still for me that the policy isn't fully
> coherent.
>=20
> Eric
>=20
> [...]
I can perfectly understand your point of view and I agree, we do have a
problem here. However, if I try to add this change to my current
patches, those patches (and their changes) would be
أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:19:24PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> Personally now that we have openjdk I think we should drop Sun's JRE, at
>> which
>> point you don't need a virtual package for them.
> ---end quoted text---
>
> I don't think this is possible, since (as fa
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:
OK, I'm not exactly enthusiastic, but I can live with this, as long as
the wording of the policy is adapted accordingly.
Why I'm not enthusiastic: should I manage to get into Debian yet another
Java runtime, which is not compatible with either gcj, nor with openjdk,
then the result could be th
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
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:19:24PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Personally now that we have openjdk I think we should drop Sun's JRE, at which
> point you don't need a virtual package for them.
---end quoted text---
I don't think this is possible, since (as far as I know) the only java
plugin
On Fri Mar 26 17:37, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>> They should build-depend on default-jdk and depend on default-jre |
>> javaN-runtime
> I have some problems with this:
>
> 1. the policy states something like "javaX-runtime fulfills the Java X
> specifications" (sorry, the patches are not reachable ri
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
