Your message dated Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:02:57 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#912652: libopenjfx-java: Breaks mediathekview but does
not tell so
has caused the Debian Bug report #912652,
regarding libopenjfx-java: Breaks mediathekview but does not tell so
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
912652: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=912652
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libopenjfx-java
Version: 11+26-5
Severity: important
openjdfx entered testing (but mediathekview did not, so it stayed on
the stable version). However, mediathekview does not work in this
combination, as reported in #910395.
So somewhere package relations are broken. Since probably the stable
version of mediathekview could not forsee the problems with later
openjdx I would on first shot assume that openjdx need to break
the stable version of mediathekview.
Please reassign if my analysis is wrong (it might well be).
(E.g. mediathekview might need to conflict later versions of openjdfx,
which I cannot really judge but might be needed to prevent similar
issues in the future).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL
set to de_DE.UTF-8), LANGUAGE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set
to de_DE.UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages libopenjfx-java depends on:
ii libopenjfx-jni 11+26-5
libopenjfx-java recommends no packages.
Versions of packages libopenjfx-java suggests:
pn openjfx <none>
-- no debconf information
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann [email protected]
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Am 02.11.18 um 12:47 schrieb Helge Kreutzmann:
> Package: libopenjfx-java
> Version: 11+26-5
> Severity: important
>
> openjdfx entered testing (but mediathekview did not, so it stayed on
> the stable version). However, mediathekview does not work in this
> combination, as reported in #910395.
>
> So somewhere package relations are broken. Since probably the stable
> version of mediathekview could not forsee the problems with later
> openjdx I would on first shot assume that openjdx need to break
> the stable version of mediathekview.
I don't think this is a bug in libopenjfx-java which is merely a
dependency of the program. The latest version of MediathekView strictly
depends on openjfx >= 11 and #910395 has been resolved in unstable.
MediathekView just have to migrate to testing now.
> Please reassign if my analysis is wrong (it might well be).
>
> (E.g. mediathekview might need to conflict later versions of openjdfx,
> which I cannot really judge but might be needed to prevent similar
> issues in the future).
A Conflict relationship would be wrong because MediathekView doesn't
conflict with any files in libopenjfx-java. They are perfectly
co-installable. Breaks/Replaces would be wrong for the same reasons. At
the moment you are just using a buggy version of MediathekView with a
bug that was fixed in unstable. Stable users will never face it when
they upgrade from Stretch to Buster.
Regards,
Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
<https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>.
Please use
[email protected] for discussions and questions.
