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
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 Thomas,
> >
> Hi Phil,
Hello Mai
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
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 things,
and to p
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
from D
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 fails
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] openjdk-8: java.a
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] openjdk-8
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
Hi again,
> > Emmanuel, will you or should I?
>
> Please do.
sorry for taking a bit, but I did today. I talked a bit with elbrus,
explaining the reasoning, and that, of course, this won’t end up in
bookworm or have any sort of official support — I assume the normal
process of looking at it and e
Le 22/04/2021 à 02:51, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> 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 doesn’t want to prod them now, I can do this but
> nobody else should so they don’t g
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 doesn’t want to prod them
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
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 also need a debdiff against the version curre
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 covere
Hi Martijn,
I somehow missed this email, sorry about that and for the late reply.
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:14 AM Martijn Verburg
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Starting a new thread here. I know the Red Hat folks well (AdoptOpenJDK
> hosts their OpenJDK binaries for them from the source tarballs as p
Kotlin needs jdk 8 to build.
On Tue, 28 May 2019, 3:13 pm John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, <
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 5/27/19 11:04 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > The packages are now accepted and the 8u212-b03 upstream version is now
> uploaded
> > as well.
> >
> > The changes
Hi!
On 5/27/19 11:04 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The packages are now accepted and the 8u212-b03 upstream version is now
> uploaded
> 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, pleas
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.org.
Will do for x3
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 the upload
> to u
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 FTP assistants is objecti
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.
> I honestly do
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 issue, since it is gr
Andreas Schildbach:
> On 24/04/2019 10.56, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
>> Yes, we've worked hard on the transition to Java 11, fixing more than
>> 500 issues over a year. Incompatible packages have been either upgraded,
>> fixed or removed. The notable exception right now is netbeans (#925509).
>
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
It seems that openjdk-8 was also removed from jessie-backports.
Why? Is it a mistake?
Regards
Thomas
Le 28/04/2019 à 10:07, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> How is this supposed to bootstrap? Moritz asked ftp-master to restore the
> removed binaries instead.
Good point, I forgot about this. I guess it could be tweaked to build
with openjdk-11 but I haven't tried.
Thank you Moritz.
Emmanuel Bourg
On 25.04.19 18:36, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 25/04/2019 à 18:27, Timo Aaltonen a écrit :
>
>> Any idea when JDK8 will return? I'd need it for testing dogtag/freeipa
>> server.
>
> I've uploaded it yesterday, it's in the NEW queue.
>
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/openjdk-8_8u212-b01-2.html
On 25.4.2019 19.36, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 25/04/2019 à 18:27, Timo Aaltonen a écrit :
>
>> Any idea when JDK8 will return? I'd need it for testing dogtag/freeipa
>> server.
>
> I've uploaded it yesterday, it's in the NEW queue.
>
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/openjdk-8_8u212-b01-2.htm
On 24.4.2019 11.56, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 24/04/2019 à 10:13, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>>
>> So this was a deliberate decision? Can you point me at any public
>> discussion log? #915620 makes it look like it was a mistake.
>
> The removal from testing was intended (we already shipped only
Le 25/04/2019 à 18:27, Timo Aaltonen a écrit :
> Any idea when JDK8 will return? I'd need it for testing dogtag/freeipa
> server.
I've uploaded it yesterday, it's in the NEW queue.
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/openjdk-8_8u212-b01-2.html
Emmanuel Bourg
On 24/04/2019 10.56, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Yes, we've worked hard on the transition to Java 11, fixing more than
> 500 issues over a year. Incompatible packages have been either upgraded,
> fixed or removed. The notable exception right now is netbeans (#925509).
The other notable exception is b
Hi Emmanuel, thanks for the prompt reply!
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:56:19AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
The removal from testing was intended (we already shipped only one JDK
in the last two releases), but the removal from unstable was a mistake.
We'll need OpenJDK 8 to bootstrap SBT (and prob
Le 24/04/2019 à 10:13, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>
> So this was a deliberate decision? Can you point me at any public
> discussion log? #915620 makes it look like it was a mistake.
The removal from testing was intended (we already shipped only one JDK
in the last two releases), but the removal
Our policy is to support only one version of OpenJDK per Debian release.
So this was a deliberate decision? Can you point me at any public discussion
log? #915620 makes it look like it was a mistake.
Buster will be supported until 2024 and Red Hat has vowed to maintain OpenJDK
8 until 2023. T
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Stretch for the next 3 years. Alternatively, we may provide OpenJDK 8
> for Buster in the backports repository, but we can't guarantee it'll be
Ehm, you realise that openjdk-8 was removed from both unstable and
experimental recently? (This seems to hav
ckports were for packages backported from Debian "n+1".
I'm pretty sure lots of users will like to have a simple way to install
openjdk-8 on Buster.
Regards,
Thomas
De : Emmanuel Bourg
Envoyé : mercredi 10 avril 2019 09:02
À : Thomas L; debian-jav
Hi Thomas,
Our policy is to support only one version of OpenJDK per Debian release.
We don't have the resources to maintain more than one version during the
whole lifetime of a release. Buster will be supported until 2024 and Red
Hat has vowed to maintain OpenJDK 8 until 2023. That would leave Ope
On 05.02.2016 07:59, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
...is now the default Java runtime in unstable! I just uploaded
java-common/0.55 to unstable and it switched the default-jre/jdk to
openjdk-8 for all the architectures previously defaulting to openjdk-7.
I expect a few packages to FTBFS after this updat
great!
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> ...is now the default Java runtime in unstable! I just uploaded
> java-common/0.55 to unstable and it switched the default-jre/jdk to
> openjdk-8 for all the architectures previously defaulting to openjdk-7.
>
> I expect a few packag
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> ...is now the default Java runtime in unstable! I just uploaded
> java-common/0.55 to unstable and it switched the default-jre/jdk to
> openjdk-8 for all the architectures previously defaulting to openjdk-7.
>
Thanks for your work on this and
This worksforme.
Andreas.
Index: jdk8u-3e6d3c8810ee/common/autoconf/generated-configure.sh
===
--- jdk8u-3e6d3c8810ee.orig/common/autoconf/generated-configure.sh
+++ jdk8u-3e6d3c8810ee/common/autoconf/generated-configure.sh
@@ -6862,
On 09/03/2015 04:44 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> This worksforme.
Am I missing an email? I can't see Andreas' reply anywhere.
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - gl
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> This worksforme.
Cool, thanks! I see some parts I already had, and I suspect that
a couple of the extra struct aligns were what I had missing.
@Doko: I’ll have another look at this then.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-5
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - openjdk-7 m68k is "not-for-us", needing intervention from somebody
It doesn’t work (not even Zero does), and nobody is capable enough
and has enough time to fix it (I tried, when I had a bit more time
for m68k, but I didn’t manage to fix either this
On 09/03/2015 08:53 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 03/09/2015 00:39, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>
>> I disagree. Please revert mips/mipsel back to gcj, or fix the mips/mipsel
>> builds
>> for openjdk-8 (and for openjdk-9). The other alternative would be not to
>> build
>> the packages for mips/mi
Le 03/09/2015 00:39, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> I disagree. Please revert mips/mipsel back to gcj, or fix the mips/mipsel
> builds
> for openjdk-8 (and for openjdk-9). The other alternative would be not to
> build
> the packages for mips/mipsel and file RC issues for packages building
> binary-
On 09/01/2015 11:21 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 29/07/2015 16:36, tmanc...@debian.org a écrit :
>
>> Any concerns with an upload of java-commons to experimental sooner than
>> September?
>
> I uploaded java-commons/0.53 to experimental with the switch to
> openjdk-8. I plan to switch sid in tw
Thanks a lot for the rebuild and the analysis Chris. There is some noise
caused by the maven2 dependency changes (i.e. the maven-scm and junit4
failures popping around these days), I'll try to clear that quickly to
have a better picture of the issues left.
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 29/07/2015 16:36, tmanc...@debian.org a écrit :
> Any concerns with an upload of java-commons to experimental sooner than
> September?
I uploaded java-commons/0.53 to experimental with the switch to
openjdk-8. I plan to switch sid in two weeks.
Emmanuel Bourg
I did a practice partial archive rebuild with ebourg's 1.8 default-jdk,
to see what kind of problems might be left. 1144 packages[1] that
dose-debuildcheck thinks depend on default-jdk, around ten
unexpected/new failures.
My full notes are on whiteboard[2], with a backup at time of sending[3].
F
Le 29/07/2015 16:36, tmanc...@debian.org a écrit :
> Any concerns with an upload of java-commons to experimental sooner than
> September?
Yes good idea.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.or
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:23:22PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 12:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are reaching the end of the OpenJDK 8 transition, we are down to one
> > package failing to build with the new version, and not the least since
> > it's Eclipse. The
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:49:39AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suggest that we do the switch the first week of September. OpenJDK 7
> will remain available, but ultimately we aim for its removal in Stretch
> to lower the maintenance burden.
>
> What do you think?
+1
Wonderful n
On 07/28/2015 12:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are reaching the end of the OpenJDK 8 transition, we are down to one
> package failing to build with the new version, and not the least since
> it's Eclipse. There is also a handful of patches available for other
> packages waiting for
Am 28.07.2015 um 09:49 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> Hi all,
>
> We are reaching the end of the OpenJDK 8 transition, we are down to one
> package failing to build with the new version, and not the least since
> it's Eclipse. There is also a handful of patches available for other
> packages waiting fo
On 01/22/2015 02:23 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your
own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else.
>>>
>>> How do
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your
>>> own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else.
>>
>>How do automated builds factor into that?
>
> I don't thi
>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your
>> own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else.
>
>How do automated builds factor into that?
I don't think it makes any difference. But IANAL, and you'd have to
read
Le 22/01/2015 00:14, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> most of this is ranting, and marketing.
I, for one, welcome our new marketing overlords and their lovely
duke-decorated TCK certificates ;)
http://www.azulsystems.com/sites/default/files/pdf/cert.zulu1.8.0_25-8.4.0.1-x86lx64.deb.pdf
Emmanuel
--
Le 18/01/2015 23:21, Jonathan Yu a écrit :
> I wonder if there's anything that can (or should) be done to address
> Gil's criticisms. I love Debian and would always prefer to install
> things via apt-get from the official repositories rather than
> download/install third-party packages, so it woul
On 01/18/2015 11:21 PM, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Awhile back, there was a question on the Mechanical Sympathy mailing list
> (if you haven't heard of it before, it's a group for discussing development
> of high-performance programs, mainly focussing on Java).
>
> Gil Tene (CTO and C
On 01/19/2015 03:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 19/01/15 11:35, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> I've requested an access to the TCK for Java 8 in June to
>> run it on the Debian packages but I haven't heard back from Oracle yet.
>
> I'd ping them again.
this is a problem. I now got access to the TCK f
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your
> own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else.
How do automated builds factor into that?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d
On 19/01/15 11:35, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> I've requested an access to the TCK for Java 8 in June to
> run it on the Debian packages but I haven't heard back from Oracle yet.
I'd ping them again.
Andrew.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubs
On 19/01/15 00:20, Paul Wise wrote:
> If there are individuals who have access to the TCK and could
> validate the package and file bugs, that would be great.
That would be against the rules AFAICR: you're supposed to do your
own TCK runs, and not on behalf of someone else.
Andrew.
--
To UNSU
Le 19/01/2015 01:20, Paul Wise a écrit :
> The actual version is 8u40~b09-1, which means Debian revision 1 of
> beta 9 of 8u40. It sounds like he misinterpreted this version. Perhaps
> expanding the b to beta would help here?
'b' stands for 'build' here, not 'beta'. A new OpenJDK build is tagged
Hi Jonathan,
Le 18/01/2015 23:21, Jonathan Yu a écrit :
> I wonder if there's anything that can (or should) be done to address
> Gil's criticisms. I love Debian and would always prefer to install
> things via apt-get from the official repositories rather than
> download/install third-party packag
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> To my knowledge, Zulu is currently the only OpenJDK 8 binary build available
> that is actually fully tested. When I say "actually fully tested", I mean
> that someone actually states that the specific binary package has passed the
> full set o
On 12/31/2014 04:23 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 31/12/2014 11:19, Thomas Zlika a écrit :
>
>> Thanks for the tip and the pre-built binaries.
>> However, the version is sid is a beta release (I think 8u40 will not be
>> released
>> before spring) so I would prefer a more stable version.
>> Btw,
On 12/31/2014 12:19 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, tony mancill wrote:
>
>> I built them today using the method described above, and the .changes
>> file (openjdk-8_8u40~b09-1_amd64.changes) is signed with my Debian GPG key.
>
> If you do that, ABSOLUTELY MAKE SURE TO CHANGE TH
Le 31/12/2014 11:19, Thomas Zlika a écrit :
> Thanks for the tip and the pre-built binaries.
> However, the version is sid is a beta release (I think 8u40 will not be
> released
> before spring) so I would prefer a more stable version.
> Btw, I don't understand why sid has a so "cutting edge" ver
Hi Tony,
> Le 31 déc. 2014 à 01:59, tony mancill
> You can always build from source on a jessie system or in a jessie
> chroot by adding a deb-src URL for sid to your /etc/apt/sources.list and
> then using:
>
> $ apt-get source openjdk-8
> $ cd openjdk-8
> $ debuild -us -uc
Thanks for the tip a
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, tony mancill wrote:
> I built them today using the method described above, and the .changes
> file (openjdk-8_8u40~b09-1_amd64.changes) is signed with my Debian GPG key.
If you do that, ABSOLUTELY MAKE SURE TO CHANGE THE LINE
Distribution: unstable
to something like:
On 12/29/2014 10:43 PM, Thomas Zlika wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Would it be possible to know the roadmap for openjdk-8 in Debian? I know it
> missed the Jessie train, but is a backport package can be expected anytime
> soon? (Including a backport package for Wheezy also?).
> Thanks for the answers.
On 12/30/2014 08:26 AM, Thomas Zlika wrote:
>
>> Le 30 déc. 2014 à 15:24, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit :
>>
>> I plan to backport openjdk-8 to Jessie once the freeze is over. No
>> promise for a backport to Wheezy though.
>
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> Great news!
> Up to my knowledge there is no easy way to i
> Le 30 déc. 2014 à 15:24, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit :
>
> I plan to backport openjdk-8 to Jessie once the freeze is over. No
> promise for a backport to Wheezy though.
Hi Emmanuel,
Great news!
Up to my knowledge there is no easy way to install openjdk-8 on Debian yet
(the only simple solution is
Hi Thomas,
Le 29/12/2014 22:43, Thomas Zlika a écrit :
> Would it be possible to know the roadmap for openjdk-8 in Debian? I know it
> missed the Jessie train, but is a backport package can be expected anytime
> soon? (Including a backport package for Wheezy also?).
> Thanks for the answers.
I
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Thomas Zlika wrote:
> Would it be possible to know the roadmap for openjdk-8 in Debian?
It is in unstable already but has two RC bugs:
https://bugs.debian.org/760982
https://bugs.debian.org/760984
The second of these is a meta-bug for the list of tasks that need
Le 04/05/2014 00:15, tony mancill a écrit :
> That was it - thanks for the tip. openjdk-8 builds correctly in a
> jessie chroot.
The issue is now fixed if you want to give it another try.
Emmanuel Bourg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsub
Le 04/05/2014 00:15, tony mancill a écrit :
> That was it - thanks for the tip. openjdk-8 builds correctly in a
> jessie chroot.
I figured what is wrong, you can work around this issue by ensuring the
letter 'j' doesn't appear in the build path.
There a script invoked during the hotspot build t
On 05/03/2014 12:15 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 03/05/2014 20:00, tony mancill a écrit :
>>
>> I'm having problems building. The patches apply correctly and langtools
>> builds, but hotspot fails very early on in the ad_stuff target with an
>> error about make arguments, which I will paste belo
Le 03/05/2014 20:00, tony mancill a écrit :
>
> I'm having problems building. The patches apply correctly and langtools
> builds, but hotspot fails very early on in the ad_stuff target with an
> error about make arguments, which I will paste below. Any suggestions?
> I've pulled the current sou
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:36:59PM -0300, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, it was something obvious as I suspected.
>> My build just started, let's see how it goes for me. :)
>>
>
> I was able to rebuild it and to use it to rebuild some other packages.
I'm having problems building. The p
On 05/02/2014 02:56 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 02/05/2014 16:18, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit :
>
>> And there are a few build dependencies left on openjdk-6-jdk:
>>
>> - java-access-bridge
>
> I'm unable to find any dependency left on libaccess-bridge-java (there
> is just a suggested dependency o
Le 02/05/2014 22:25, Felix Natter a écrit :
> Thus, after extracting openjdk-8_8u5-b13.orig.tar.gz in . (the directory
> containing 'debian'), I had to move its contents (two tarballs) from
> ./openjdk8 to . [1]
> --> maybe this should be mentioned in README.source?
I didn't document this step b
Le 02/05/2014 16:18, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit :
> And there are a few build dependencies left on openjdk-6-jdk:
>
> - java-access-bridge
I'm unable to find any dependency left on libaccess-bridge-java (there
is just a suggested dependency on libaccess-bridge-java-jni from
omegat). java-access-brid
Emmanuel Bourg writes:
> Hi Felix,
hello Emmanuel,
> Thank you for giving a try.
>
> Le 01/05/2014 18:27, Felix Natter a écrit :
>
>> I am having a small issue with the current git version:
>> If I download via "debian/rules get-orig-source", and then
>> "dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc" I get:
>>
>
Le 02/05/2014 20:18, Felix Natter a écrit :
> Does that mean that you intend to ship openjdk-7 xor openjdk-8 in
> jessie? I think it would be good to keep openjdk-7 in case there are
> problems (like rendering problems [1]) with openjdk-8.
openjdk-8 build depends on openjdk-7 so it can't go away
On 02/05/2014 20:18, Felix Natter wrote:
>
> BTW: my package jmapviewer still Depends: on openjdk-7-jre. This should
> soon be changed to default-jre, right? (I _think_ David wants to package
> 1.03 anyway...).
>
Right!
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
Matthias Klose writes:
> Am 02.05.2014 06:36, schrieb tony mancill:
>> On 05/01/2014 10:05 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> Le 01/05/2014 18:27, Felix Natter a écrit :
>>
Another question: Is it sufficient to point "update-java-alternatives"
to openjdk-8 in order to use it to build and r
Le 02/05/2014 15:11, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> The first priority should be to ship with only one version of OpenJDK.
I have just fixed visualvm which was one of the remaining packages
depending on openjdk-6. We are down to two bugs preventing the removal:
https://bugs.debian.org/727805 (rjav
Am 02.05.2014 06:36, schrieb tony mancill:
> On 05/01/2014 10:05 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 01/05/2014 18:27, Felix Natter a écrit :
>
>>> Another question: Is it sufficient to point "update-java-alternatives"
>>> to openjdk-8 in order to use it to build and run subsequent packages
>>> (tha
On 02/05/2014 08:40, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 02/05/2014 06:36, tony mancill a écrit :
>
>> Given that we're 6 months from the freeze, and just 4 months from the
>> deadline for any new transitions [1], is it reasonable to target
>> uploading a new java-common to experimental that depends on ope
Le 02/05/2014 06:36, tony mancill a écrit :
> Given that we're 6 months from the freeze, and just 4 months from the
> deadline for any new transitions [1], is it reasonable to target
> uploading a new java-common to experimental that depends on openjdk-8 in
> the next month or so?
Why not, but wi
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
