Am 04.04.2018 um 10:24 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> Le 04/04/2018 à 09:48, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>
>> I wouldn't spend any time on that. We are moving towards 11, and openjfx is
>> split out there. So yes, maybe packages have to drop openjfx support for
>> some time.
>
> +1, Oracle has announced
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:15:59AM +0200, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
> On 2018-04-04 10:24, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Le 04/04/2018 à 09:48, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> >
> > > I wouldn't spend any time on that. We are moving towards 11, and
> > > openjfx is
> > > split out there. So yes, maybe packages
On 2018-04-04 10:24, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 04/04/2018 à 09:48, Matthias Klose a écrit :
I wouldn't spend any time on that. We are moving towards 11, and
openjfx is
split out there. So yes, maybe packages have to drop openjfx support
for some time.
+1, Oracle has announced last month [1] t
Le 04/04/2018 à 09:48, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> I wouldn't spend any time on that. We are moving towards 11, and openjfx is
> split out there. So yes, maybe packages have to drop openjfx support for some
> time.
+1, Oracle has announced last month [1] that JavaFX would be decoupled
from Java 1
On 04.04.2018 07:10, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 01:00 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>>> (C) looks like the best workaround for now. Looking at at least four
>>> security
>>> releases per year, and maybe the double amount of package
On 10/23/2017 01:00 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>> (C) looks like the best workaround for now. Looking at at least four
>> security
>> releases per year, and maybe the double amount of package uploads, the
>> OpenJDK
>> package has a higher upload
Le 24/10/2017 à 09:09, 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan a écrit :
> Why not keep the source package name as "openjfx" and then name the binary
> package "openjdk-9-jfx"?
src:openjfx can't be reused for OpenJFX 9, because I need it to backport
OpenJFX 8 updates for Stretch.
Emmanuel Bourg
Why not keep the source package name as "openjfx" and then name the binary
package "openjdk-9-jfx"?
Emmanuel Bourg 於 2017年10月23日 07:00 寫道:
> Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>
>> Are you aware if upstream is aware of these issues, and if they intend to
>> stop
>> using internal Op
On Thursday, 12 October 2017 13:13:44 BST Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I started working on OpenJFX 9 this week. The good news is that it
> builds fine in Debian now [1]. The bad news is that it's going to be
> significantly more challenging to integrate it with our OpenJDK package.
>
> Wi
Le 22/10/2017 à 12:57, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> Are you aware if upstream is aware of these issues, and if they intend to stop
> using internal OpenJDK APIs? Any plans to get rid off the single file approach
> for the database files?
I don't know. At least they are aware that OpenJFX fails to b
Am 22.10.2017 um 21:32 schrieb Mykola Nikishov:
> Markus Koschany writes:
>
>> Indeed D is not really an option and would be the end for Netbeans,
>> pdfsam, mediathekview and a future Eclipse version. I wonder how other
>> distributions like Fedora will deal with this issue in the future.
>
> M
Markus Koschany writes:
> Indeed D is not really an option and would be the end for Netbeans,
> pdfsam, mediathekview and a future Eclipse version. I wonder how other
> distributions like Fedora will deal with this issue in the future.
Markus, could you elaborate on 'a future Eclipse version'? I
Am 22.10.2017 um 17:27 schrieb 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan:
> (D) doesn't seem good to me, since lot of apps are using JavaFX (e.g.
> NetBeans and Bisq). These apps won't even launch using Debian's default JRE
> if OpenJFX isn't included, which would be quite annoying to some users.
Indeed D is not real
(D) doesn't seem good to me, since lot of apps are using JavaFX (e.g. NetBeans
and Bisq). These apps won't even launch using Debian's default JRE if OpenJFX
isn't included, which would be quite annoying to some users.
Matthias Klose 於 2017年10月22日 18:57 寫道:
> On 12.10.2017 13:13, Emmanuel Bourg w
On 12.10.2017 13:13, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I started working on OpenJFX 9 this week. The good news is that it
> builds fine in Debian now [1]. The bad news is that it's going to be
> significantly more challenging to integrate it with our OpenJDK package.
>
> With OpenJDK 8 the inte
Le 17/10/2017 à 17:18, 殷啟聰 | Kai-Chung Yan a écrit :
> Although I like Plan C, it has more issues like:
>
> * Circular build-dependency between openjdk and openjfx (or there is
> already one?)
True but I don't think this is really a problem. The OpenJFX integration
could be disabled in openjd
Hello Emmanuel,
Thank you for your hard work on OpenJFX!
Although I like Plan C, it has more issues like:
* Circular build-dependency between openjdk and openjfx (or there is already
one?)
* Strange versioning pattern of openjdk rebuilds. (9~b181-5+
vs 9~b181-5+b1)
Looks like the extensib
Hi all,
I started working on OpenJFX 9 this week. The good news is that it
builds fine in Debian now [1]. The bad news is that it's going to be
significantly more challenging to integrate it with our OpenJDK package.
With OpenJDK 8 the integration was just a matter of installing extra jar
files a
18 matches
Mail list logo
