Hi!
On 02/11/2023 21:24, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Hi ELTS people (mostly pochu, I guess),
for openjdk-8 tests, Vladimir tells me we “really” want jtreg5.
If it is possible to add a jtreg5 package to jessie and stretch
even if it exists nowhere else, perhaps with vendored dependencies
where
Hi ELTS people (mostly pochu, I guess),
for openjdk-8 tests, Vladimir tells me we “really” want jtreg5.
If it is possible to add a jtreg5 package to jessie and stretch
even if it exists nowhere else, perhaps with vendored dependencies
where applicable like it is done for jtreg7 in stable now, we
On 07/07/2023 19:29, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Alioth is no longer maintained, but the old lists.alioth.debian.org addresses
have been preserved and should still be used.
But not for new things, I understood?
Not for new teams, but new packages in existing teams can keep using the
same addres
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Alioth is no longer maintained, but the old lists.alioth.debian.org addresses
> have been preserved and should still be used.
But not for new things, I understood?
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Infrastrukturexperte • tarent solutions GmbH
Am Dickobskreuz 10, D-
On 26/06/2023 20:53, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Last time I asked the answer was a vague yes; is this still
the case?
Nothing has changed, so yes. We just need openjdk-8 in unstable.
Emmanuel Bourg
On 04/07/2023 20:42, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
This is how I understood team-maintained packages to be handled.
Especially how else are people supposed to get the bug traffic.
debian-java@lists.debian.org is a discussion list, notifications should
go to pkg-java-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.o
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023, Vincent Prat wrote:
> Lately, we have been receiving a significant number of automatic emails
> concerning openjdk-8.
> This is because this diffusion list is in the Maintainer field of the package.
This is how I understoof team-maintained packages to be handled.
E
Hi,
Lately, we have been receiving a significant number of automatic emails
concerning openjdk-8.
This is because this diffusion list is in the Maintainer field of the
package.
I remember that a few years ago, I had put the list as the Maintainer of
one of my packages and I was asked to set
Your message dated Sun, 02 Jul 2023 22:39:05 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1040181: fixed in openjdk-8 8u382~b04-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1040181,
regarding openjdk-8: Please disable tests on zero architectures
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Sun, 02 Jul 2023 22:39:05 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1040167: fixed in openjdk-8 8u382~b04-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1040167,
regarding openjdk-8-jre-headless: version 8u382~b04-1 depends on libjpeg8 which
is not in Debian
to be marked as done.
This
Source: openjdk-8
Version: 8u382~b04-1
Severity: important
Tags: patch
X-Debbugs-Cc: Thorsten Glaser
Zero is slow, OpenJDK has many tests, and on slower ports
architectures the build can literally take a month:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=openjdk-8&arch=alpha
Please fix
Your message dated Sun, 02 Jul 2023 21:49:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1040167: fixed in openjdk-8 8u382~b04-2~binfix1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1040167,
regarding openjdk-8-jre-headless: version 8u382~b04-1 depends on libjpeg8 which
is not in Debian
to be marked as done
/2.2.9 (2022-11-12)
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 23:02:38 +0200
Subject: Re: Fwd: (buildd chroot bug) Re: Bug#1040167: openjdk-8-jre-headless:
version 8u382~b04-1 depends on libjpeg8 which is not in Debian
Message-ID:
[ tl;dr for buildd-maintainers: nothing to do. ]
Hi,
On 2023-07-02 21:44, Thorsten
Hi,
On 2023-07-02 20:04, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have a situation; could you please abort the openjdk-8 builds
> that are not yet finished?
I have just killed the build on mipsel and mips64el.
Regards
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1D
he situation
fixed as openjdk-8 build-depends on itself, which will be bad if
it’s not installable.
I’m going to change all uses of the distro codename to fall safely,
however if the buildd chroot bug could be fixed, I’d be glad.
bye,
//mirabilos
① sid buildd chroots should save the follo
Hi,
we have a situation; could you please abort the openjdk-8 builds
that are not yet finished?
Thanks!
-- Forwarded message --
From: Fab Stz
Message-ID: <22218593.EfDdHjke4D@debian>
Resent-From: Fab Stz
To: Debian Bug Tracking System
Resent-To: debian-
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023, Fab Stz wrote:
>Updating from 8u372-ga-1 which was the previous version in unstable is not
>possible because openjdk-8-jre-headless_8e382~b04-1 depends on libjpeg8
WTF‽
*checks*
Indeed. Weird.
Thanks for reporting, I’ll have two or three looks at it… fixing that
is
Package: openjdk-8-jre-headless
Version: 8u382~b04-1
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
Updating from 8u372-ga-1 which was the previous version in unstable is not
possible because openjdk-8-jre-headless_8e382~b04-1 depends on libjpeg8
However libjpeg8 is not to be found in Debian
Expected
Hi,
apparently there’s again the question whether we still need
openjdk-8 in sid for bootstrapping JVM-based languages and/or
utilities. This is independent of the question whehter it
should be there to ease backports or because people might
otherwise turn to Canonical’s commercial offer or
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> close 1035340
Bug #1035340 [openjdk-8-jdk] latest openjdk-8-jdk version 8u372-b07 is not
available
Marked Bug as done
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
1035340: https://bugs.debian.org/c
package: openjdk-8-jdk
version: latest
When I invoke `apt-get update && apt-get install openjdk-8-jdk` it is
installing an older version of jdk-8 which is 8u362-b09.
Jdk version 8u372-b07 is not getting installed while running the `apt-get
install openjdk-8-jdk` even after running the
ssie-backports and up).
src:openjdk-8 testing works with that, so we can use this for the
jessie and stretch ELTS uploads. As long as pochu doesn’t update
testng in either, we’re fine, jtreg6 or not.
When testng 7.3 will be uploaded to Debian (not before the release
of bookworm), then openjdk-8 in sid shou
much work it'd be to port to the new API
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011567
Another solution, maybe simpler: package the com.sun.javadoc API
in a standalone package, independent from openjdk-8
Sounds totally reasonable. But I have no idea how to start on that. Wou
;d be to port to the new API
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011567
Another solution, maybe simpler: package the com.sun.javadoc API
in a standalone package, independent from openjdk-8
Emmanuel Bourg
Hans-Christoph Steiner:
Thorsten Glaser:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Great work there! I would still love to see openjdk-8 in bookworm.
That ship has sailed yesterday. No new entries into testing are now
possible any more.
Damn, that might mean a lot of Android
Thorsten Glaser:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Great work there! I would still love to see openjdk-8 in bookworm.
That ship has sailed yesterday. No new entries into testing are now
possible any more.
Damn, that might mean a lot of Android packages are not going to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> Great work there! I would still love to see openjdk-8 in bookworm.
That ship has sailed yesterday. No new entries into testing are now
possible any more.
> We're
> going to loose a bunch of Android things because doclava ca
days banging my head on this issue, I don't
think
it's possible.
I take that back, kotlin now builds with OpenJDK 17 and is on track to
migrate to testing.
This comes at a price though, besides my sanity I had the sacrifice the
Android support (the Android dependencies still build with Ope
Le 2023-02-10 18:07, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
The MIPS buildds are at it currently and expected to finish soon,
in case you still want to go forward. It’s close to soft freeze.
It's still building but that's fine, we won't need openjdk-8
for kotlin, the beast has been tamed.
Emmanuel Bourg
Dixi quod…
>On Mon, 30 Jan 2023, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> I suggest that we let openjdk-8 transition to testing now before the
>> beginning of the soft freeze, just to keep our options open.
[…]
>then, if we indeed can keep the options open.
The MIPS buildds are at it current
had the sacrifice the
> Android support (the Android dependencies still build with OpenJDK 8)
> and
> the -Xuse-javac option which hasn't been updated for OpenJDK 17 yet [1].
That sounds awesome. Well done!
> The solution I think is to upgrade Gradle to the first version with the
&
ack, kotlin now builds with OpenJDK 17 and is on track to
migrate to testing.
This comes at a price though, besides my sanity I had the sacrifice the
Android support (the Android dependencies still build with OpenJDK 8)
and
the -Xuse-javac option which hasn't been updated for OpenJDK 1
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 2023-01-26 19:39, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>
>>> ineluctable truth: we need OpenJDK 8 back into the stable distribution.
>>
>> Not going to happen, sorry. This has been vetoed by the security
>> team and was the con
Le 2023-01-26 19:39, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
ineluctable truth: we need OpenJDK 8 back into the stable
distribution.
Not going to happen, sorry. This has been vetoed by the security
team and was the condition for keeping it in unstable at all.
Are you opposed to this idea, or just
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> ineluctable truth: we need OpenJDK 8 back into the stable distribution.
Not going to happen, sorry. This has been vetoed by the security
team and was the condition for keeping it in unstable at all.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Infrastrukturexperte • tar
g my head on this issue, I don't
> think
> it's possible.
[...]
I have come to the same conclusion. Your recent commitment to make this all
work with OpenJDK 17 gave me hope but it shouldn't be I guess.
>
> How do you feel about allowing openjdk-8 in testing/bookwor
y tedious and error prone.
We can continue struggling like this for a few more years (the Kotlin
packaging effort started 3 years ago already), or we can accept the
ineluctable truth: we need OpenJDK 8 back into the stable distribution.
Looking around, Ubuntu kept shipping the openjdk-8 package i
Hi Thomas,
> since Java 8 Update 341 is the default on java.com I think it should be in the
> Debian repo.
there’s 8u342-b07-1 (which corresponds to 8u345-ga) in Debian,
but *only* for jessie and stretch ELTS, and (totally unsupported)
in unstable. java.*com* has no bearing on Debian.
Debian has
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 01:30:02PM +, Thomas Vatter wrote:
> Am 28.09.22 um 10:22 schrieb Phil Morrell:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 08:32:23AM +, Thomas Vatter wrote:
> > > a complete OpenJDK 8 is missing in the repo. There is only a server VM.
> >
> > Hi
Hi Phil,
since Java 8 Update 341 is the default on java.com I think it should be
in the Debian repo.
Thomas
Am 28.09.22 um 10:22 schrieb Phil Morrell:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 08:32:23AM +, Thomas Vatter wrote:
a complete OpenJDK 8 is missing in the repo. There is only a server VM
Hi Phil,
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 08:32:23AM +, Thomas Vatter wrote:
> > a complete OpenJDK 8 is missing in the repo. There is only a server VM.
> OpenJDK 8 LTS has not been included in Debian since stretch which as of
it’s in sid, though… mostly to help boostrap Kotlin and th
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 08:32:23AM +, Thomas Vatter wrote:
> a complete OpenJDK 8 is missing in the repo. There is only a server VM.
Hi Thomas,
OpenJDK 8 LTS has not been included in Debian since stretch which as of
June 30th is no longer supported by LTS team. Please update to v11 LTS
f
Hello,
a complete OpenJDK 8 is missing in the repo. There is only a server VM.
best regards
Thomas Vatter
Self-Employed Software-Developer
Network-Inventory Software
Tel. 030-79782510
Fax 030-79782512
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> close 896907
Bug #896907 [openjdk-8-jre-headless] openjdk-8-jre-headless: Headless JRE
package should not configure assistive technologies
Marked Bug as done
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assi
close 896907
thanks
Hi,
closing as the requested moreinfo was not provided in the last ~year
and we’re moving toward 17 as supported JDK/JRE.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Gestern Nacht ist mein IRC-Netzwerk explodiert. Ich hatte nicht damit
gerechnet, darum bin ich blutverschmiert… wer konnte ahnen, daß
Your message dated Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:42:28 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Avez-vous besoin d'un prêt?
has caused the Debian Bug report #896907,
regarding openjdk-8-jre-headless: Headless JRE package should not configure
assistive technologies
to be marked as done.
This means tha
Your message dated Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:42:20 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Avez-vous besoin d'un prêt?
has caused the Debian Bug report #760982,
regarding openjdk-8 needs time zone data
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this i
Your message dated Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:42:28 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Avez-vous besoin d'un prêt?
has caused the Debian Bug report #819785,
regarding openjdk-8-jre-headless: Debug information missing in JRE jars
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the proble
Your message dated Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:53:06 -0800
with message-id
and subject line Avez-vous besoin d'un prêt?
has caused the Debian Bug report #896907,
regarding openjdk-8-jre-headless: Headless JRE package should not configure
assistive technologies
to be marked as done.
This means tha
Your message dated Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:53:06 -0800
with message-id
and subject line Avez-vous besoin d'un prêt?
has caused the Debian Bug report #819785,
regarding openjdk-8-jre-headless: Debug information missing in JRE jars
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the proble
Your message dated Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:53:01 -0800
with message-id
and subject line Avez-vous besoin d'un prêt?
has caused the Debian Bug report #760982,
regarding openjdk-8 needs time zone data
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this i
Your message dated Tue, 22 Feb 2022 01:20:47 +0100
with message-id
<0d8026bf.avyaaes-buqaacotjggatgaaabtbywbif...@mailjet.com>
and subject line Avez-vous besoin d'un prêt?
has caused the Debian Bug report #760982,
regarding openjdk-8 needs time zone data
to be mar
Your message dated Tue, 15 Jun 2021 20:48:33 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#906111: fixed in openjdk-8 8u292-b10-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #906111,
regarding openjdk-8-jre: Package should Provide: java-runtime
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
Your message dated Tue, 15 Jun 2021 20:48:33 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#822348: fixed in openjdk-8 8u292-b10-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #822348,
regarding openjdk-8-jre-headless: prerm checks for wrong file before
deregistering binfmt
to be marked as done.
This means
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # this is here for keeps
> tags 989736 moreinfo
Bug #989736 [src:openjdk-8] openjdk-8: keep out of testing and stable
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> outlook 989736 This package is required for JVM language bootstrapping in
> unstable,
Hi Andre,
> This was supposed to be fixed upstream in Java 12:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210493
>
> However it was taken back again (see last comment in that issue) and is now
> supposedly fixed in java 13:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215294
> https://bugs.openjd
Am 15.06.21 um 00:54 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
tags 907541 + confirmed upstream
found 907541 openjdk-8/8u292-b10-1
found 907541 openjdk-11/11.0.12+4-1
thanks
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Andre Naujoks wrote:
This bugs affects all currently available Java versions in Debian (7, 8, 10 and
11).
I don&#
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 907541 + confirmed upstream
Bug #907541 [openjdk-8] [openjdk-8] Bind to a multicast address fails
Added tag(s) upstream and confirmed.
> found 907541 openjdk-8/8u292-b10-1
Bug #907541 [openjdk-8] [openjdk-8] Bind to a multicast address
tags 907541 + confirmed upstream
found 907541 openjdk-8/8u292-b10-1
found 907541 openjdk-11/11.0.12+4-1
thanks
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Andre Naujoks wrote:
> This bugs affects all currently available Java versions in Debian (7, 8, 10
> and 11).
> I don't know how to mark this h
aging PoV, have different configurations
depending on which packages are installed.
> The openjdk-8-jre-headless package intentionally excludes user interface
> related components, but the package mistakenly enables Java assistive
> technologies which require user interface components.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 834053 + confirmed upstream
Bug #834053 [src:openjdk-8] openjdk-8: java.awt.Font#deriveFont(int style)
corrupts font size
Added tag(s) upstream and confirmed.
> found 834053 openjdk-8/8u292-b10-1
Bug #834053 [src:openjdk-8] ope
tags 834053 + confirmed upstream
found 834053 openjdk-8/8u292-b10-1
found 834053 openjdk-11/11.0.12+4-1
thanks
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, Nobuhiro Ban wrote:
> Or, should I send this report to upstream?
This would be appreciated. While we can fix that in the
Debian copies of openjdk-8, and proba
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 819785 8u292-b10-1
Bug #819785 [openjdk-8-jre-headless] openjdk-8-jre-headless: Debug information
missing in JRE jars
Marked as found in versions openjdk-8/8u292-b10-1.
> tags 819785 + upstream
Bug #819785 [openjdk-8-jre-headless] o
found 819785 8u292-b10-1
tags 819785 + upstream
thanks
On Sat, 2 Apr 2016, Christian Haul wrote:
> I have just discovered that stepping into JRE classes with a debugger does not
> allow inspecting variable states, the debugger complains that classes are
> built
> without "-g" option.
They are
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> unarchive 819785
Bug #819785 {Done: Debian FTP Masters }
[openjdk-8-jre-headless] openjdk-8-jre-headless: Debug information missing in
JRE jars
Unarchived Bug 819785
> unarchive 822348
Bug #822348 {Done: Debian FTP Masters }
[openjdk
Hi,
can anyone comment on the status of:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=760982
Is there anything that still needs to be done? AFAICT it
works fine on jessie.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Infrastrukturexperte • tarent solutions GmbH
Am Dickobskreuz 10, D-53121 Bonn • http://www.tarent.
Dixi quod…
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2021, Sunil Mohan Adapa wrote:
>
> > Kotlin packaging[1] is in a good shape and ready to be uploaded[2] into
> > Debian. We need a DD willing to upload it.
> >
> > The actual upload needs to wait for openjdk-8, which is currently in the
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>I assume the normal
> process of looking at it and eventually getting back to us will run
> now.
So far, nothing happened, and repeated inquiries got no response at all.
Just keeping the list informed.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Infrastrukturexperte • tare
Hi again,
I’ve asked over time again, but other than the “can we keep it out of
bookworm?”, which, of course, is a yes, I’ve not got any feedback yet.
> In the meantime I also prepared an 8u292-b10-1… found lots of issues
> even… but will wait uploading it until it was ACCEPTED into unstable
> be
building it for testing locally
right now.
> That said, we may also upload kotlin now even if openjdk-8 is still in
> the queue. As long as they enter sid in the right order, that's fine. In
I’d really prefer not. The first upload of openjdk-8 was done in a
hackish way. Please wait with
o they don’t get annoyed.
>
> Emmanuel, will you or should I?
Please do.
That said, we may also upload kotlin now even if openjdk-8 is still in
the queue. As long as they enter sid in the right order, that's fine. In
the worst case kotlin will be accepted before openjdk-8 an
Hi Phil,
> I'm sure it's just a matter of time, but have you had any feedback from
> ftp-masters about openjdk-8?
unfortunately not yet. They’re probably depriorising sid in times of
freeze, but the grace period for not bothering them is probably over
by now so if ebourg does
involved in making
> > > it build with GCC 10, if there is interest.
> >
> > We are certainly doomed without openjdk-8 in unstable, we really need it
> > back.
>
> Okay. So, unless doko vetos (it was he who was the maintainer
> and he who requested the removal (to b
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I have released this to stretch and jessie (after some testing on the latter).
Thanks!
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (
Hi Thorsten,
On 02/12/2020 20:39, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Let me know how those tests go and we can proceed from there.
It builds, with the usual “most tests pass”, and the test
program I threw at it also works.
I have released this to stret
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Let me know how those tests go and we can proceed from there.
It builds, with the usual “most tests pass”, and the test
program I threw at it also works.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tar
On 02/12/2020 11:21, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Hi Emilio,
If you can send a debdiff I'd be happy to take a look.
the debdiff between sid and stretch would be trivial, just
changelog and the regenerated debian/control file (attached).
I’m building it at the moment so I can test it first.
Do you
hitektur, Innovation und Umsetzung
sowie Agile Organisation.
Besuchen Sie uns auf https://www.tarent.de/consulting .
Wir freuen uns auf Ihren Kontakt.
*diff -Nru openjdk-8-8u275-b01/debian/changelog
openjdk-8-8u275-b01/debian/changelog
--- openjdk-8-8u275-b0
Hi Thorsten,
On 02/12/2020 10:06, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Hi (E)LTS-people,
I’ve just uploaded an OpenJDK 8 regression update to sid,
sponsored by my employer (as below). (I’m also building locally
for buster, wheezy and various *buntu releases, so all possible
systems I may encounter are
Hi (E)LTS-people,
I’ve just uploaded an OpenJDK 8 regression update to sid,
sponsored by my employer (as below). (I’m also building locally
for buster, wheezy and various *buntu releases, so all possible
systems I may encounter are covered, which is why I’m invested.)
Would it help if I also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA384
Dixi quod…
> some stuff in my personal APT repository on my own server,
> and packages coming from a DD are usually better than .deb
> format files, produced Goddess knows how, from elseplace.
Here we are: http://www.mirbsd.org/~tg/Debs/debidx.htm
has begun offering their openjdk 8
> builds as debian packages in a package repository of their own. Which is
> great, and completely meets my nice-to-have request without wasting the
> precious time of the Debian Java Team.
It’s not about time, it’s about Debian’s security guarantee.
If so
On 2019-08-28 at 11:56, t.gla...@tarent.de wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
>
> > In the beginning of the summer there were discussions of backporting
> > openjdk-8 to buster/stable once the release dust had settled.
>
> That would mean shipping bu
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> In the beginning of the summer there were discussions of backporting
> openjdk-8 to buster/stable once the release dust had settled.
That would mean shipping bullseye with OpenJDK 8 as well,
which is kinda defeated by the justification to not s
Hi all,
In the beginning of the summer there were discussions of backporting
openjdk-8 to buster/stable once the release dust had settled.
Are there any update on those intentions?
Is there anything I and other users/non-maintainers can do to help?
Of course I can use adoptopenjdk binaries
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:01:05 +0200
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> No openjdk-8 won't go into Buster. I'll try to upload it as a backport
> though because it's still fairly popular. I plan to update the release
> notes this week.
Okay, thanks for clarify.
--
Hideki Yamane
Le 16/06/2019 à 15:21, Hideki Yamane a écrit :
> I'm checking buster release note and find that it says both OpenJDK8
> and 11 exists in buster.
>
> https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.html#newdistro
>
> But as https://tracker.d
Hi,
I'm checking buster release note and find that it says both OpenJDK8
and 11 exists in buster.
https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.html#newdistro
But as https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/openjdk-8 , it doesn't exist in
testing (buster). Will op
quite a good work
recently, releasing very closely with upstream.
> As an FYI - the 'Official' AArch64 port for OpenjDK 8 (jdk8u) is actually
> https://hg.openjdk.java.net/aarch64-port/jdk8u-shenandoah
>
> I'm not sure if this is where Debian was building from for that pl
7; AArch64 port for OpenjDK 8 (jdk8u) is actually
https://hg.openjdk.java.net/aarch64-port/jdk8u-shenandoah
I'm not sure if this is where Debian was building from for that platform?
I'll try to chase down arm32/aarch32 - I don't think we're even building
that at Adopt yet o
; as well.
> >
> > The changes and buildinfo files didn't exist anymore for the powerpc,
> ppc64,
> > sparc64 and x32 binaries, so if a porter wants to restore those, please
> rebuild
> > them with manually installed openjdk-8 packages from snapshot.debian.org
wants to restore those, please
> rebuild
> them with manually installed openjdk-8 packages from snapshot.debian.org.
Yes, I can do that. So, if I understand correctly, Kotlin requires OpenJDK-8
to work?
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - gl
On Mon, 27 May 2019, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The changes and buildinfo files didn't exist anymore for the powerpc, ppc64,
> sparc64 and x32 binaries, so if a porter wants to restore those, please
> rebuild
> them with manually installed openjdk-8 packages from snapshot.debian.
On 26.05.19 21:13, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable
> (although
> the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again
> in
> NEW, targeting unstable. One of the FTP assistants is objecting to
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 09:13:38PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable
> (although
> the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again
> in
> NEW, targeting unstable. One of the FT
Le 26/05/2019 à 21:13, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable
> (although
> the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again
> in
> NEW, targeting unstable.
Thank you for the upload Matthias
The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable (although
the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again in
NEW, targeting unstable. One of the FTP assistants is objecting to the upload
to unstable, apparently because somebody (security team
On 30/04/2019 15.21, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> It is also not possible to run upstream Gradle binaries older than 4.8
> or 4.7. It is a stupid bug on Gradle's part, but nonetheless, those
> versions work with OpenJDK 8. I guess the Debian package of gradle
> fixed the i
ight now is netbeans (#925509).
>
> The other notable exception is building apps for Android, since the
> versions of Android Gradle plugin you can use due to Gradle 4.4 are
> quite old (and the version included in Debian is ancient).
>
> I'm happy for now that at least Ubuntu
Hello,
Am 29.04.19 um 17:29 schrieb Thomas L:
> It seems that openjdk-8 was also removed from jessie-backports.
> Why? Is it a mistake?
jessie-backports is obsolete and no longer supported.
Regards,
Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo
