Am 22.03.2013 19:08, schrieb Moritz Mühlenhoff:
> Matthias Klose schrieb:
>>> I'm not familiar with the Java internals, but if we're following that
>>> approach
>>> it would make sense to upgrade Wheezy to the version in experimental
>>> (i.e. 7u15 instead of 7u3).
>>
>> I won't upload this mysel
>> I won't upload this myself. IcedTea 7-2.3 uses two hotspot versions, one for
>> the
>> zero ports, one for the hotspot runtimes. From my point of view it would be
>> good
>> to update to a 7-2.[45] with a unified hotspot version capable to build both
>> zero and hotspot, and keep the current 7
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 01.03.2013 04:35, schrieb Moritz Mühlenhoff:
>> Backporting security fixes with Java has turned out to be more of less
>> unfeasible. I tried this once with DSA 2507 and I think that amounted to at
>> least
>> two man days of work for tha
Am 01.03.2013 04:35, schrieb Moritz Mühlenhoff:
> Backporting security fixes with Java has turned out to be more of less
> unfeasible. I tried this once with DSA 2507 and I think that amounted to at
> least
> two man days of work for that update alone. Also, Ubuntu has shipped
> backports to all
Moritz Mühlenhoff:
> I'm not familiar with the Java internals, but if we're following that approach
> it would make sense to upgrade Wheezy to the version in experimental
> (i.e. 7u15 instead of 7u3).
+1
(I am using the experimental version)
Cheers,
Andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
Control: retitle -1 openjdk-6 should not be released with jessie
Control: tag -1 + wheezy-ignore
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 14:08:44 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Op donderdag 28 februari 2013 21:35:09 schreef Moritz Mühlenhoff:
> > So we should proceed with providing backports for openjdk in the
Op donderdag 28 februari 2013 21:35:09 schreef Moritz Mühlenhoff:
> So we should proceed with providing backports for openjdk in the future.
>
> If Matthias keeps the Debian/Ubuntu packaging in a state that it's easily
> buildable on squeeze/wheezy for ojdk6 and for wheezy on ojdk7 I think
> we sh
Niels Thykier schrieb:
> On 2013-02-17 23:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> There is a bug report open for openjdk-6 in wheezy (#675495) and squeeze
>> didn't
>> see any security updates for several months. To summarize, no party
>> involved is
>> capable or willing to provide security updates based
On 18/02/2013 07:26, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Thanks a lot for explaining the situation and alternative paths forward.
>
> My view as a user:
>
> I only want OpenJDK7 (maybe OpenJDK8 when that becomes generally
> available on September 9, 2013 :-)
>
> Oracle has announced that no more new publi
On 2013-02-18 08:23, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Niels Thykier:
>>> - Updating to openjdk-7 in wheezy would not solve any issues from my
>>>point of view, and it would need some porting of packages to 7, and
>>>probably removing some packages which are not yet ported.
>>>Otoh removing op
Niels Thykier:
>> - Updating to openjdk-7 in wheezy would not solve any issues from my
>>point of view, and it would need some porting of packages to 7, and
>>probably removing some packages which are not yet ported.
>>Otoh removing openjdk-7 for wheezy could be an option if only one
>
Thanks a lot for explaining the situation and alternative paths forward.
My view as a user:
I only want OpenJDK7 (maybe OpenJDK8 when that becomes generally
available on September 9, 2013 :-)
Oracle has announced that no more new public updates of Java SE 6 will
be made available after February
Hi!
Matthias Klose writes:
> - Afaik openjdk-7 for kfreebsd does build on kfreebsd (according to Damien)
>with the kfreebsd kernel from wheezy. So maybe some commitment could be
>found to upgrade and maintain the kernels before wheezy is released?
Actually as far as I could narrow it
Am 18.02.2013 00:08, schrieb Niels Thykier:
> On 2013-02-17 23:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> - Remove openjdk-6 in wheezy. Probably would require falling back to
>>gcj. Not recommended as a runtime environment, but should work fine
>>for building packages, as ecj is used for byte-code compi
On 2013-02-17 23:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> There is a bug report open for openjdk-6 in wheezy (#675495) and squeeze
> didn't
> see any security updates for several months. To summarize, no party involved
> is
> capable or willing to provide security updates based on backports of single
> patch
There is a bug report open for openjdk-6 in wheezy (#675495) and squeeze didn't
see any security updates for several months. To summarize, no party involved is
capable or willing to provide security updates based on backports of single
patches to the released openjdk-6 version in a stable release.
16 matches
Mail list logo
