Re: jmock2

2013-09-16 Thread Stephen Nelson
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Stephen Nelson wrote: > On Monday, September 2, 2013, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> >> Le 02/09/2013 17:55, Stephen Nelson a écrit : >> >> > Thanks for finding that commit. I'll try and build with this later >> > version and see how it goes. As it's a breaking API change

Re: jmock2

2013-09-05 Thread Stephen Nelson
On Monday, September 2, 2013, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 02/09/2013 17:55, Stephen Nelson a écrit : > > > Thanks for finding that commit. I'll try and build with this later > > version and see how it goes. As it's a breaking API change how can I > > easily find the packages that have a build depen

Re: jmock2

2013-09-02 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
The build failure has been fixed upstream but it hasn't been released yet: https://github.com/jmock-developers/jmock-library/commit/6758febcbd09caf7db90df473fe84f5f41eb6037 You could probably try to upgrade the package to this revision. Emmanuel Bourg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-r

Re: jmock2

2013-09-02 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 02/09/2013 17:55, Stephen Nelson a écrit : > Thanks for finding that commit. I'll try and build with this later > version and see how it goes. As it's a breaking API change how can I > easily find the packages that have a build dependency on jmock? You can get the reverse build dependencies wi

Re: jmock2

2013-09-02 Thread Stephen Nelson
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > The build failure has been fixed upstream but it hasn't been released yet: > > https://github.com/jmock-developers/jmock-library/commit/6758febcbd09caf7db90df473fe84f5f41eb6037 > > You could probably try to upgrade the package to this revisio

Re: jmock2

2013-09-02 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
On 02/09/2013 16:14, Stephen Nelson wrote: > There's a bug in the jmock project [1] that is blocking the packaging > of openjpa. There is also the more severe FTBFS bug [2] which might > require a breaking change to the api according to the author [3]. I > was intending to look into this in more de

Re: jmock2

2013-09-02 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
On 02/09/2013 16:28, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > #721538 is easy to fix, but the API changes implied by #717122 would be > better dealt by upstream. An alternative would be to build jmock > explicitly with openjdk6, but that would prevent its removal from Jessie. Please, don't depend on OpenJDK6. We ar

Re: jmock2

2013-09-02 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
#721538 is easy to fix, but the API changes implied by #717122 would be better dealt by upstream. An alternative would be to build jmock explicitly with openjdk6, but that would prevent its removal from Jessie. Is jmock required by the core of openjpa or only some of its unit tests? Disabling some