[Jonathan Nieder]
> | There was 1 failure:
> | 1)
> testLogDate(org.tigris.subversion.javahl.BasicTests)junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
> expected:<1191466852134992> but was:<1191423652134992>
> | at
> org.tigris.subversion.javahl.BasicTests.testLogDate(BasicTests.java:91)
> | at org.tigris.subversion.javahl.RunTests.main(RunTests.java:111)
>
> Is the problem known? Is it Debian-specific? debian/rules says
>
> # This fails on current free JVMs, according to Blair Zajac.
> # Thus the "-" prefix, to ignore failure, for now.
>
> Is it a JVM bug? Inquiring minds want to know. :)
The Subversion high-level Java bindings ('javahl') in Debian have gone
through 3 different compilers (Jikes, Kaffe, and now gcj) and none of
them could make all the tests pass. Oracle's OpenJDK implementation
apparently works, so this failure is presumably either a gcj or Java
runtime bug, or an ambiguity in the standard. Ubuntu switched over to
OpenJDK some time ago (before OpenJDK was in Debian, unsurprisingly),
but I've never found the energy to care enough about the Java stuff to
apply the Ubuntu patch to switch Debian's Subversion to use OpenJDK. I
don't know if it's even a good idea to do so. What is the state of the
Java build and runtime world? Last I heard, gcj could target some sort
of native code, not just JVM bytecode. Does that mean it's still
better than Oracle's offering, or does nobody care?
By the way, big thanks for your attention to the Subversion packaging
of late,
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
