Re: openjdk-7 for kfreebsd

2013-11-23 Thread Steven Chamberlain
On 23/11/13 14:10, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > [...] I uploaded java-common > 0.50 which defaults to openjdk under kfreebsd. Thanks for that. But I'm seeing something strange though on the buildds. [Cc'ing Debian FTP Masters for advice]. This change means that build-depends for bouncycastle and mp

Re: openjdk-7 for kfreebsd

2013-11-23 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
Hello, On 13/11/2013 20:45, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Sorry to jump in on a thread about mips, but on kfreebsd we are also > looking to switch to openjdk-7 as soon as possible. And we were advised > to send our patches upstream also. I'd appreciate any advice on how to > go about doing that. >

Re: openjdk-7 for kfreebsd

2013-11-14 Thread Robert Millan
On 14/11/2013 12:53, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > -#ifdef __linux__ > +#if defined(__linux__) || defined(__GLIBC__) > > We have dozens of these for example - that kind of ifdef is ambiguous as > to whether it expects "the Linux kernel" or just "a Linux-like userland" > which is true also of GNU/kFr

Re: openjdk-7 for kfreebsd

2013-11-14 Thread Andrew Haley
On 11/14/2013 11:53 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 14/11/13 09:26, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> [...] on kfreebsd we are also looking to switch to openjdk-7 as >>> soon as possible. And we were advised to send our patches >>> upstream also. I'd appreciate any advice on how to go ab

Re: openjdk-7 for kfreebsd

2013-11-14 Thread Steven Chamberlain
Hi Andrew, On 14/11/13 09:26, Andrew Haley wrote: >> [...] on kfreebsd we are also looking to switch to openjdk-7 as soon as >> possible. And we were advised to send our patches upstream also. I'd >> appreciate any advice on how to go about doing that. > > Talk to me. Thank you! Debian appl

Re: openjdk-7 for kfreebsd

2013-11-14 Thread Andrew Haley
On 11/13/2013 07:45 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote: >> On 11/13/2013 12:29 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >>> I have finally been able to fix openjdk-7 on mips and mipsel. > > Brilliant! > > On 13/11/13 09:10, Andrew Haley wrote: >> That's an odd patch. > > FWIW it looks right to me that something like