El 25/04/16 a las 02:07, Luca Filipozzi escribió:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Do you have some concrete suggestions?
>
> Decrease the separation by moving the funds management into Debian proper (via
> a TO like SPI) and move to a bounty model for working
Hi,
just nitpicking about a single detail here…
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The reason why I did it within Freexian is that it was just the simplest
> way to get it started and to prove that given some sane rules it's
> possible to not harm the Debian commun
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:22:51PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I would like to ask everyone who uses Java in server or desktop
> environments to test their applications with OpenJDK 7 and to prepare
> for the switch. This can be achieved by installing either openjdk-7-jre
> or openjdk-7-jr
Am 25.04.2016 um 11:41 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:22:51PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I would like to ask everyone who uses Java in server or desktop
>> environments to test their applications with OpenJDK 7 and to prepare
>> for the switch. This can be achie
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:17:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> we are mainly concerned about runtime issues with OpenJDK 7. Libreoffice
> declares dependencies on default-jre | openjdk-7-jre, so I believe it
> should be fine. I am aware of build failures with OpenJDK 7 and I think
> that c
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:17:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I think in those cases it is reasonable to recommend to manually change
> build dependencies back to OpenJDK 6 because rebuilding a package does
> not pose a security risk and should never happen on production systems
> anyway.
I d
Am 25.04.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:17:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> we are mainly concerned about runtime issues with OpenJDK 7. Libreoffice
>> declares dependencies on default-jre | openjdk-7-jre, so I believe it
>> should be fine. I am awa
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:34:53PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 25.04.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:17:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> >> we are mainly concerned about runtime issues with OpenJDK 7. Libreoffice
> >> declares dependencies on def
Am 25.04.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:17:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> I think in those cases it is reasonable to recommend to manually change
>> build dependencies back to OpenJDK 6 because rebuilding a package does
>> not pose a security risk and shoul
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 01:07:54PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I have discussed this on debian-java already but in short I had to
> ponder about several things and one thing was how to spend our resources
> responsibly. Of course I can fix all build failures in Wheezy LTS but
> fixing 140 bugs
On Mon, 2016-04-25 at 02:07 +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> > Do you have some concrete suggestions?
> Decrease the separation by moving the funds management into Debian proper (via
> a TO like SPI) and move to a bounty model fo
Hi,
this is really getting off-topic from the initial discussion, so I'm
dropping all lists except LTS and I add the leader in the loop (he was
already following it but through debian-wb-team AFAIK).
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Raphael He
On 2016-04-25 09:27:34, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> - I don't think that the bounty model gives the correct incentive for
> the security work, and you would have a hard time covering the hard
> packages...
I think this is a critical part of it. Bounties are fine and fun if you
want to scratch an
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-04-25 09:27:34, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > - I don't think that the bounty model gives the correct incentive for
> > the security work, and you would have a hard time covering the hard
> > packages...
>
> I think this is a critical part of
Hi,
(fwiw, I am dropping all CCs except debian-lts)
On 23/04/2016 14:41, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Concerning the other concerns that you brought up, they do not seem
> specific to the support of the armel/armhf architectures. They
> rather question the LTS project as a whole and the usage of mone
15 matches
Mail list logo
