Control: severity -1 serious
Hi there,
the package fails to build when rebuilding with sbuild in a current sid
chroot, so I'm raising severity to serious again:
[junit] - Standard Error -
[junit] Feb 01, 2014 2:55:08 PM
Control: tag -1 - wheezy
On Sunday, 10. March 2013 03:50:40 Andres Mejia wrote:
At this time, being this late into the release cycle, I would like to
support only the default-jdk. I am building with sbuild using a chroot
created by sbuild-createchroot as I believe this closely matches what
On 2014-02-01 16:39, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Control: tag -1 - wheezy
On Sunday, 10. March 2013 03:50:40 Andres Mejia wrote:
At this time, being this late into the release cycle, I would like to
support only the default-jdk. I am building with sbuild using a chroot
created by
On 2014-02-01 17:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
Therefore removing the wheezy tag, as the new issue only affects sid.
Is that only sid or sid and jessie? You said the former, but the
bug is tagged sid jessie implying you might mean the other.
I don't know, haven't tried (and don't plan to). So
Control: tags -1 -unreproducible
On 01.02.2014 17:23, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
On 2014-02-01 17:03, Niels Thykier wrote:
Therefore removing the wheezy tag, as the new issue only affects sid.
Is that only sid or sid and jessie? You said the former, but the
bug is tagged sid jessie implying
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:42 AM, gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:12:32 -0500, Andres Mejia wrote:
I just rebuilt bsaf on my machine that has the DISPLAY environment variable
set and
In a chroot or in the normal environment?
The normal environment.
on a sid
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:42:09 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
As mentioned earlier in this bug log by Matteo, building with
openjdk-7-jdk works in the same setup.
Not anymore:
[junit] Running org.jdesktop.application.TaskMonitorTest
[junit] Testsuite:
On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:12:32 -0500, Andres Mejia wrote:
I just rebuilt bsaf on my machine that has the DISPLAY environment variable
set and
In a chroot or in the normal environment?
on a sid and wheezy chroot via sbuild-shell (which in turn uses
schroot) that does not have DISPLAY set. All
On Monday, January 7, 2013, Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
On 01/07/2013 07:48 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:13:35 +0100, Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
I tried rebuilding the bsaf software in wheezy with default-jdk,
which uses the openjdk from openjdk-6-jre-headless_6b24.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:13:35 +0100, Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
I tried rebuilding the bsaf software in wheezy with default-jdk,
which uses the openjdk from openjdk-6-jre-headless_6b24.
It builds just fine.
Is this really still an issue?
It still fails to build for me in wheezy and sid
On 01/07/2013 07:48 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:13:35 +0100, Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
I tried rebuilding the bsaf software in wheezy with default-jdk,
which uses the openjdk from openjdk-6-jre-headless_6b24.
It builds just fine.
Is this really still an issue?
It
Hey,
I tried rebuilding the bsaf software in wheezy with default-jdk, which
uses the openjdk from openjdk-6-jre-headless_6b24.
It builds just fine.
Is this really still an issue?
Joost
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
690152 fixed 1.9-3
thanks
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:22:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Source: bsaf
Version: 1.9-3
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20121010 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS in wheezy on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:36:09 +, Matteo Vescovi wrote:
The stack trace led me to suspect the root cause of the issue lies
in the java.beans package.
I built the bsaf sources and tests with the default jdk
(/usr/lib/jvm/default-java - java-6-openjdk) and then ran the
entire testsuite
* gregor herrmann wrote [24.10.12 17:13]:
Hi,
Running the tests under xvfb I get a different failure:
JFTR I get the exact same error messages running it directly in X11.
(and it goes on and on for pages)
So: no idea :/
(I'm still attaching the change to use xvfb which seems to be a
Hi,
Here's what I found out so far about this bug.
Unsetting the DISPLAY environment variable works around the FTBFS error
by skipping the failing Junit tests. However, unsetting DISPLAY is not
the preferable/acceptable solution, as it simply skips the failing tests.
Check out the
The first failing test is BadSessionStateTest. The first exception in
the log is actually expected:
[junit] java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 0
[junit] at
com.sun.beans.ObjectHandler.dequeueResult(ObjectHandler.java:189)
[junit] at
Hi,
The stack trace led me to suspect the root cause of the issue lies in
the java.beans package.
I built the bsaf sources and tests with the default jdk
(/usr/lib/jvm/default-java - java-6-openjdk) and then ran the entire
testsuite with openjdk-7-jdk by changing the exported JAVA_HOME to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:21:04 -0700, tony mancill wrote:
During a rebuild of all packages in *wheezy*, your package failed to
build on amd64.
I couldn't reproduce this in wheezy or sid, but I was only using pbuilder
to test.
I was able to get the build to fail by setting DISPLAY to
On 10/10/2012 07:12 PM, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:22:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Source: bsaf
Version: 1.9-3
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20121010 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS in wheezy on amd64
Hi,
Source: bsaf
Version: 1.9-3
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20121010 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS in wheezy on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in *wheezy*, your package failed to
build on amd64.
Relevant part:
debian/rules
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:22:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Source: bsaf
Version: 1.9-3
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20121010 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS in wheezy on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in
22 matches
Mail list logo
