On 01/10/2015 06:26 PM, tony mancill wrote: > On 01/07/2015 10:41 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Hi, >> >> If the bug is RC on its own, but you believe it is irrelevant for the >> Jessie release, the correct option would be to have it ignored (please >> file a bug against release.debian.org for that). >> Mind you, the assumption is that the bug is in fact RC. If not, the >> release team will probably recommend downgrading it instead. >> >> If the bug only prevents "new packages" from being build (i.e. packages >> not already in Jessie/sid), it /sounds/ like it might not be RC after >> all (maybe "important"). However, please keep in mind that my answer is >> solely based on the above mail. > > Hi Niels, > > Thank you for the guidance. In the case of #773805 (maven pom), I do > believe that it's not RC from a severity standpoint. > > I think #773829 might fall into the same category, although I do have a > patch and will be uploading a new package with just this build change > tomorrow morning.
Hello Niels, Java Team: I have uploaded a lucene4 source package that invokes javacc to rebuild the queryparser classes from the .jj files. I'm not certain about the severity with respect to jessie, so I'm writing to discuss whether an unblock request or a severity/ignore is warranted. The package should regenerate the parser classes in case there is a change to the .jj files, but I don't have an idea of how often this might occur. The regenerate step isn't part of normal upstream build process; upstream ships the pre-generated class files. However, there doesn't seem to be any harm in regenerating, and we're now treating the .jj files as "source." Thank you, tony
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.