On 13/03/18 10:25, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 13.03.2018 09:38, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 03/03/18 10:59, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> As you can see it's a bunch of packages building with gcc-6 & g++-6. They 
>>> probably
>>> need new upstream versions that support GCC 7. The only exception is 
>>> libpam-script
>>> build-depending on libgfortran3 for no apparent good reason. I filed 
>>> #889876 for that.
>> I filed bugs for these:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-...@lists.debian.org;tag=gcc-6-rm
>>> As for the GCJ removal, I crafted this list of binary packages. This is 
>>> running
>>> for sid, so it catches more stuff.
>>> Some things here need to be updated to use openjdk or default-jdk, e.g. 
>>> kamailio, pdftk, libidn...
>>> Other things likely need to be removed since GCJ is no more, e.g. ant-gcj, 
>>> ecj-gcj...
>> And for these:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-...@lists.debian.org;tag=gcj-rm
> Please could you extend the latter with bug reports where
> default-jdk/default-jre is going to away altogether because it's provided by
> gcj?  Things like db5.3 come to my mind ...

default-{jdk,jre} are provided by gcj on hurd and hppa. Worst case we'll have to
remove it and the rdeps on those architectures, but I'll open bugs against
openjdk-9 with a Cc for the porters in case they can take a look at it.


Reply via email to