Hi Tony,
On 22-06-2019 01:40, tony mancill wrote:
> As of 2019-06-21 23:34:12 UTC, the buildd status page [1] indicates
> "BD-Uninstallable":
>
>> Dependency installability problem for openjdk-11 on arm64:
>>
>> Installability of build dependencies not tested yet
>
> I'm not sure what that
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:18:14PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2019-06-21 21:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> > I know there have been disk issues reported on one of the new machines
> > (yay!), possibly that's the cause here. I don't have direct login
> > access myself to be able to check.
Hi,
On 2019-06-21 21:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:29:18PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> "tony" == tony mancill writes:
> >
> >tony> Hi Paul,
> >
> >tony> I emailed ar...@buildd.debian.org regarding that this morning
> >tony> (at 13:35 UTC), but haven't
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:29:18PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "tony" == tony mancill writes:
>
>tony> Hi Paul,
>
>tony> I emailed ar...@buildd.debian.org regarding that this morning
>tony> (at 13:35 UTC), but haven't received a response yet. Perhaps
>tony> related, but the
> "tony" == tony mancill writes:
tony> Hi Paul,
tony> I emailed ar...@buildd.debian.org regarding that this morning
tony> (at 13:35 UTC), but haven't received a response yet. Perhaps
tony> related, but the first arm64 build failed for the upload to
tony> unstable last
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 09:35:29PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi tony,
>
> On 20-06-2019 15:44, tony mancill wrote:
> > I interpret this exchange to mean that 11.0.3+7-5 is still the version
> > preferred by the OpenJDK Team and so have uploaded that, built against
> > buster and with
Hi tony,
On 20-06-2019 15:44, tony mancill wrote:
> I interpret this exchange to mean that 11.0.3+7-5 is still the version
> preferred by the OpenJDK Team and so have uploaded that, built against
> buster and with distribution set the buster.
>
> Let me know if I misinterpreted and should upload
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:48:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 19.06.19 22:03, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Hi Tony,
> >
> > On 18-06-2019 22:14, tony mancill wrote:
> >> Things are looking good so far with 11.0.4+4+really11.0.3+7 in unstable,
> >> and so I would like to prepare the t-p-u upload.
On 19.06.19 22:03, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> On 18-06-2019 22:14, tony mancill wrote:
>> Things are looking good so far with 11.0.4+4+really11.0.3+7 in unstable,
>> and so I would like to prepare the t-p-u upload. At the moment, the
>> version I have is 11.0.3+7-5, since that would have
Hi Tony,
On 18-06-2019 22:14, tony mancill wrote:
> Things are looking good so far with 11.0.4+4+really11.0.3+7 in unstable,
> and so I would like to prepare the t-p-u upload. At the moment, the
> version I have is 11.0.3+7-5, since that would have been the "next"
> 11.0.3+7 Debian revision for
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:26:02PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12-06-2019 21:54, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > Le 12/06/2019 à 20:38, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> >
> >> Can you explain why, please?
> >
> > You mean why not using the +really version in testing? Because that's
> > ugly and
On 12.06.19 00:37, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 09:46:41PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
>> I am not a member of the OpenJDK team and contributed far less to the
>> JDK 8 -> 11 transition than Emmanuel has. If he and Matthias are in
>> agreement and the plan is palatable to the
On 12.06.19 20:38, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 12-06-2019 10:33, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> I talked to Matthias on IRC yesterday, he was ok with the +really
>> version in unstable only as a testbed for a tpu upload with a sane version.
>
> Can you explain why, please?
because we had
Hi,
On 12-06-2019 21:54, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 12/06/2019 à 20:38, Paul Gevers a écrit :
>
>> Can you explain why, please?
>
> You mean why not using the +really version in testing? Because that's
> ugly and confusing for the end users I guess.
I'd still like Matthias to confirm, but that
Le 12/06/2019 à 20:38, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> Can you explain why, please?
You mean why not using the +really version in testing? Because that's
ugly and confusing for the end users I guess.
Emmanuel Bourg
Hi Matthias,
On 12-06-2019 10:33, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> I talked to Matthias on IRC yesterday, he was ok with the +really
> version in unstable only as a testbed for a tpu upload with a sane version.
Can you explain why, please?
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Le 12/06/2019 à 07:09, tony mancill a écrit :
> Regarding t-p-u and/or unstable, a source package and build of
> 11.0.4+4+really11.0.3+7 can be found here:
>
> https://people.debian.org/~tmancill/openjdk-11/
Thank you!
> The interdiff [1] between this build and the 11.0.3+7-5 discussed
>
Le 12/06/2019 à 00:37, Moritz Mühlenhoff a écrit :
> I'm also fairly sure we've shipped non-GA releases for openjdk-8 before?
That's true but the situation for OpenJDK 8 was slightly different. The
GA releases weren't clearly identified by upstream and the code for
alternative architectures
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:37:11AM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 09:46:41PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> > I am not a member of the OpenJDK team and contributed far less to the
> > JDK 8 -> 11 transition than Emmanuel has. If he and Matthias are in
> > agreement and
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 09:46:41PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> I am not a member of the OpenJDK team and contributed far less to the
> JDK 8 -> 11 transition than Emmanuel has. If he and Matthias are in
> agreement and the plan is palatable to the Release and Security Teams,
> that's ideal.
I
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 01:20:30AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 10/06/2019 à 21:12, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>
> > My position is that the openjdk maintainers should make this decision
> > based on what is best for our users based on the quality of the
> > software.
>
> There is little doubt
Le 10/06/2019 à 21:12, Sam Hartman a écrit :
> My position is that the openjdk maintainers should make this decision
> based on what is best for our users based on the quality of the
> software.
There is little doubt the OpenJDK users want the latest stable release
for their stable systems, and
> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Bourg writes:
Emmanuel> Le 10/06/2019 à 18:22, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>> we release with pre-releases for other packages all the time when
>> maintainers believe that's the right call to make. This is an
>> area where we trust maintainers to decide
Le 10/06/2019 à 18:22, Sam Hartman a écrit :
> we release with pre-releases for other packages all the time when
> maintainers believe that's the right call to make.
> This is an area where we trust maintainers to decide what the right
> choice is for Debian. Sometimes they disagree with
> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Bourg writes:
Emmanuel> Le 10/06/2019 à 16:18, tony mancill a écrit :
>> Emmanuel, I recognize that I am reversing position turn on this.
>> I know that you had expressed reservations about shipping with an
>> EA version as well. I took a look at the
Le 10/06/2019 à 16:18, tony mancill a écrit :
> Emmanuel, I recognize that I am reversing position turn on this. I know
> that you had expressed reservations about shipping with an EA version as
> well. I took a look at the diffs between 11.0.3+7 and 11.0.4+4, and
> all though there are a lot
On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 04:19:53PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 09:54:50PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 05-06-2019 22:28, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > I really want bug 900912 and 925071 fixed. It seems that is missing from
> > > your second approach. Let me
On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 09:54:50PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05-06-2019 22:28, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > I really want bug 900912 and 925071 fixed. It seems that is missing from
> > your second approach. Let me sleep on it. What are the chances of you
> > agreeing on doing the +really
Hi,
On 05-06-2019 22:28, Paul Gevers wrote:
> I really want bug 900912 and 925071 fixed. It seems that is missing from
> your second approach. Let me sleep on it. What are the chances of you
> agreeing on doing the +really upstream version dance such that we can
> get some testing done in
Hi Tony, Emmanuel, Matthias,
On 05-06-2019 08:07, tony mancill wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> Ping... [fixed borked address of doko and added Tony]
>>
>> On 29-05-2019 20:22, Paul Gevers wrote:
>>> Control: tags -1 928185 moreinfo
>>> Control: reopen -1
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Ping... [fixed borked address of doko and added Tony]
>
> On 29-05-2019 20:22, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 928185 moreinfo
> > Control: reopen -1
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 28-05-2019 23:50, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> >> Tony
Ping... [fixed borked address of doko and added Tony]
On 29-05-2019 20:22, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Control: tags -1 928185 moreinfo
> Control: reopen -1
>
> Hi,
>
> On 28-05-2019 23:50, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Tony Mancill has prepared the tpu upload yesterday and Matthias was ok
>> with 11.0.3+7
Control: tags -1 928185 moreinfo
Control: reopen -1
Hi,
On 28-05-2019 23:50, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Tony Mancill has prepared the tpu upload yesterday and Matthias was ok
> with 11.0.3+7 in testing [1].
Can I see a debdiff please?
> Unless Buster is expected at the end of July I'd advise
> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose writes:
Matthias> On 29.05.19 00:23, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Bourg writes:
>>
>> I'm not on the release team and cannot authorize a TPU.
>>
>>
>> As an interested bystander I'd ask that you make sure any
On 29.05.19 00:23, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Bourg writes:
>
> I'm not on the release team and cannot authorize a TPU.
>
>
> As an interested bystander I'd ask that you make sure any TPU contains a
> fix for the serious accessibility issue in
>
> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Bourg writes:
I'm not on the release team and cannot authorize a TPU.
As an interested bystander I'd ask that you make sure any TPU contains a
fix for the serious accessibility issue in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=900912
Le 28/05/2019 à 22:59, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> I was under the impression that doko wanted the current version in
> buster and that he and the security team want the next openjdk when it's
> ready.
Tony Mancill has prepared the tpu upload yesterday and Matthias was ok
with 11.0.3+7 in testing
Hi,
On 28-05-2019 22:56, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 28/05/2019 à 21:41, Paul Gevers a écrit :
>
>> Thanks for this information, it was valuable.
>>
>> I'm not happy with the current situation, but I'll let openjdk-11 go
>> into buster now.
>
> Thank you Paul. Should we upload
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 03:46:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
>
> On 02.05.19 10:30, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> >
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> Package: release.debian.org
>
Le 27/05/2019 à 15:46, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> I will continue to update the packages to the next security release which is
> expected in July. If that's too late for the release, these will most likely
> be
> handled by the security team.
If openjdk-11 gets unblocked for Buster, it would
Le 27/05/2019 à 15:46, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> No. With the change of ownership of the upstream jdk11-updates project, you
> see
> that the patches applied to the Oracle builds and to the OpenJDK builds
> differ,
> and the OpenJDK maintainers need to track issues based on tags in the issue
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
On 02.05.19 10:30, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags:
Control: tags 928185 - wontfix
Control: tags 928185 moreinfo
Control: tags 926009 wontfix
Hi doko,
I assume you wanted to tag the openjdk-11 bug as wontfix, not the
unblock bug, changed that above.
On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:59:46 +0200 Matthias Klose wrote:
> Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
> Control:
Hi,
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 01:59:46PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > From what I understand bug#926009 is a regression in that version.
> > There's no explanation that I can see for that change, no associated
^
> > bug, and it doesn't
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Control: tags -1 + wontfix
On 02.05.19 10:30, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User:
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
Hi Matthias,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
>
> Please unblock openjdk-11/11.0.3+7-4. That's the quarterly security
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock openjdk-11/11.0.3+7-4. That's the quarterly security update and
should be released with buster. No more updates planned until the next security
update in July.
47 matches
Mail list logo
