2014-07-16 22:32 GMT+02:00 Miguel Landaeta :
> It's totally normal to have technical disagreements, especially on a
> non-trivial packages like that one. What I really dislike is to
> see epithets like "bullshit" or "own agenda" in a technical
> discussion.
>
+1
--
Arnaud Vandyck
http://about.m
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:50:46AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >
> I think that is unfair statement against Emmanuel (especially when
> adding d-d & d-r to the cc list).
Totally agree with Sylvestre on this.
I also have sponsored many packages for Emmanuel in the Java team.
Frankly, I don't g
Le 16/07/2014 11:24, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
> Bad, but other packages broken is not a reason to break more.
>
> *any* Java application which is built on/for kfreebsd-* (which has native
> stuff) or _all (where it's available on kfreebsd-*, too)
I understand that would be ideal but that's unrea
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2014 um 09:50 Uhr
> Von: "Sylvestre Ledru"
> An: "Matthias Klose" , "Emmanuel Bourg" ,
> "Debian Java"
> Cc: "debian-de...@lists.debian.org" , "Debian
> Release"
> Betreff
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:24:52AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 16/07/2014 00:07, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
>
> > This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs).
>
> Fair enough. But we already have a lot of packages incompatible with gcj
> in Jessie.
Bad, but other
On 15/07/2014 23:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 15.07.2014 23:08, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
>> This was expected but now it's effective, Java 9 no longer supports
>> source/target level 1.5:
>>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2014-July/000972.html
>>
>> So if you update a package a
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 16/07/2014 00:07, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
>
> > This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs).
>
> Fair enough. But we already have a lot of packages incompatible with gcj
> in Jessie.
Ugh. If you have time, can you wor
Le 16/07/2014 00:07, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
> This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs).
Fair enough. But we already have a lot of packages incompatible with gcj
in Jessie.
What are the Java applications we want/need on these archs? We should
probably document th
Le 15/07/2014 23:55, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> No. Don't do it. This is complete bullshit for Debian at this point. We are
> trying to prepare a release, working on a possible update to Java 8, and we
> don't have the resources to work on Java 9 at this time.
Ok, but could you say it nicely ple
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:08:13PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> So if you update a package and see these settings please bump them to 1.6.
This is nonsense. Not yet - not as long we want/need gcj (on some archs).
And changing that now for jessie is not feasible.
Regards,
Rene
--
To UNSUBSC
Am 15.07.2014 23:08, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> This was expected but now it's effective, Java 9 no longer supports
> source/target level 1.5:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2014-July/000972.html
>
> So if you update a package and see these settings please bump them to 1.6.
>
This was expected but now it's effective, Java 9 no longer supports
source/target level 1.5:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2014-July/000972.html
So if you update a package and see these settings please bump them to 1.6.
It might be interesting to add a Lintian warning when a ja
12 matches
Mail list logo
