Re: Bug#479751: azureus: Requires Sun Java

2008-07-20 Thread Bastian Blank
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 02:32:54PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Julien Cristau wrote: > > Is there any evidence that the package builds on *any* architecture? Yes, it seems to do. > > AFAICT, none of the binaries in the archive have corresponding logs on > > buildd.debian.org. They were not built o

Re: Bug#479751: azureus: Requires Sun Java

2008-07-20 Thread Luk Claes
Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:57:41 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > >> [Peter Green] >>> *The "rc" bug (491362) that is open against openjdk gets downgraded (I >>> beleive it should be downgraded but as a non-dd I don't belive it is >>> my place to downgrade a bug based on

Re: Bug#479751: azureus: Requires Sun Java

2008-07-20 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Julien Cristau] > Is there any evidence that the package builds on *any* architecture? > AFAICT, none of the binaries in the archive have corresponding logs > on buildd.debian.org. Ah, good point. Perhaps it only build on the maintainers machine. If that is the case, it is definitely a serious

Re: Bug#479751: azureus: Requires Sun Java

2008-07-20 Thread Julien Cristau
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:57:41 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Peter Green] > > *The "rc" bug (491362) that is open against openjdk gets downgraded (I > > beleive it should be downgraded but as a non-dd I don't belive it is > > my place to downgrade a bug based on an unclear bit of the rc p

Re: Bug#479751: azureus: Requires Sun Java

2008-07-20 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Peter Green] > *The "rc" bug (491362) that is open against openjdk gets downgraded (I > beleive it should be downgraded but as a non-dd I don't belive it is > my place to downgrade a bug based on an unclear bit of the rc policy) I agree that it should be downgraded, as the package never successfu

Re: Bug#479751: azureus: Requires Sun Java

2008-07-20 Thread Luk Claes
peter green wrote: > >> Since openjdk is now available in main, wouldn't that be the best >> solution? >> > It would if it was in lenny but unfortunately openjdk was delayed hugely > by license issues :(. Now we have a situation where afiact openjdk will > only make it into lenny if one of the

Re: Bug#479751: azureus: Requires Sun Java

2008-07-19 Thread peter green
Since openjdk is now available in main, wouldn't that be the best solution? It would if it was in lenny but unfortunately openjdk was delayed hugely by license issues :(. Now we have a situation where afiact openjdk will only make it into lenny if one of the following happens. *The "rc" b