Re: [blfs-dev] icedtea/OpenJDK versions

2014-04-18 Thread Pierre Labastie 
Le 18/04/2014 02:15, DJ Lucas a écrit :
 On 04/17/14 19:11, DJ Lucas wrote:
 On 04/13/14 05:17, Pierre Labastie wrote:
 Hi,

 While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
 that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should 
 have
 the same version number as the previous ones.
 How should I name them?
 - OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-{i686,x86_64}-bin-2
 - OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2-{i686,x86_64}-bin
 - upload them with the same name as the prebious one? (not good, since the
 checksum changes)
 - not upload them at all

 Regards

 Pierre

 Hmm? 2.4.7 is 1.7 u55b14:



 Ugh. Sorry. Noticed the date about 3 seconds too late. FYI, we should
 see u60 and 2.5.0 hopefully right around the middle of next month.

 --DJ

Am updating to 2.4.7 right now, so thanks for the heads-up.

Pierre

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] icedtea/OpenJDK versions

2014-04-17 Thread DJ Lucas 

On 04/13/14 05:17, Pierre Labastie wrote:
 Hi,

 While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
 that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should have
 the same version number as the previous ones.
 How should I name them?
 - OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-{i686,x86_64}-bin-2
 - OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2-{i686,x86_64}-bin
 - upload them with the same name as the prebious one? (not good, since the
 checksum changes)
 - not upload them at all

 Regards

 Pierre

Hmm? 2.4.7 is 1.7 u55b14:

changeset 1cffa74f89e7 in /hg/release/icedtea7-2.4
details:http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/release/icedtea7-2.4?cmd=changeset;node=1cffa74f89e7
author: Andrew John Hughesgnu_and...@member.fsf.org
date: Wed Apr 16 05:19:28 2014 +0100

Set to u55b14.

2014-04-15  Andrew John Hughesgnu_and...@member.fsf.org

* Makefile.am:
(JDK_UPDATE_VERSION): Bump to 55 to match upstream.
(BUILD_VERSION): Bump to b14 to match upstream.

Something odd with your packaging?

--DJ


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] icedtea/OpenJDK versions

2014-04-17 Thread DJ Lucas 

On 04/17/14 19:11, DJ Lucas wrote:
 On 04/13/14 05:17, Pierre Labastie wrote:
 Hi,

 While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
 that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should 
 have
 the same version number as the previous ones.
 How should I name them?
 - OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-{i686,x86_64}-bin-2
 - OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2-{i686,x86_64}-bin
 - upload them with the same name as the prebious one? (not good, since the
 checksum changes)
 - not upload them at all

 Regards

 Pierre

 Hmm? 2.4.7 is 1.7 u55b14:



Ugh. Sorry. Noticed the date about 3 seconds too late. FYI, we should 
see u60 and 2.5.0 hopefully right around the middle of next month.

--DJ

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

[blfs-dev] icedtea/OpenJDK versions

2014-04-13 Thread Pierre Labastie 
Hi,

While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should have
the same version number as the previous ones.
How should I name them?
- OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-{i686,x86_64}-bin-2
- OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-2-{i686,x86_64}-bin
- upload them with the same name as the prebious one? (not good, since the
checksum changes)
- not upload them at all

Regards

Pierre
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Re: [blfs-dev] icedtea/OpenJDK versions

2014-04-13 Thread Fernando de Oliveira 
Em 13-04-2014 07:17, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
 Hi,
 
 While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
 that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should have
 the same version number as the previous ones.
 How should I name them?

 - not upload them at all


I discussed that long ago with Bruce, suggesting to version
1.7.0.51-2.4.6. He did not agree and told that we only update the
binaries when java version changes. So, there is nothing to do in the
binary page, only upload the packages for icedtea/OJDK page is necessary.


-- 
[]s,
Fernando
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page