On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 05:07:13PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, release people: How likely is it that Hurd gets added to jessie?
Within the next one or two months I mean, not maybe in a years
time. :)
I don't see it happening, to be honest.
Neil
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital
It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on
architectures with non-working java7.
Patches for the transition to Java7 should be available in the BTS, mostly
submitted by James Page. Some may be still lurking around as diffs in Ubuntu
packages, apologies for that.
Matthias Klose, le Mon 06 May 2013 16:22:30 +0200, a écrit :
- hurd never had openjdk support, and afaik, nobody is working on that.
There has been work towards this, notably by Jeremie Koenig. I don't
know the status, we just have not made it a strong priority so far.
Samuel
--
To
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, I have been significantly out of the loop for a while now but what do you
base that on?
What requirements are we still falling short on?
Thanks,
Barry deFreese
On 5/6/2013 7:08 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 05:07:13PM
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 05:15:44PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Percentage built, percentage up to date, and (as far as I know) a
working port and installer for a modern desktop machine?
Um, having read back the above, it may have sounded a bit more curt than
I was expecting, apologies! Those
On 05/05/13 16:07, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
...released together
with all the others (probably as a technology preview)...
So, release people: How likely is it that Hurd gets added to jessie?
If added as a 'technology preview', what does that mean exactly?
Would Hurd-specific RC-severity bugs
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:36:55AM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
OK, I have been significantly out of the loop for a while now but what
do you base that on?
What requirements are we still falling short on?
Percentage built, percentage up to date, and (as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fair enough and no offense taken. As I said, I haven't been contributing for
quite a while now so
they were more questions for myself than anything. Niels actually showed me
the graph and it is a
bit sadder than I had hoped. :( Though we do have
Matthias Klose dixit:
Currently java bindings/packages are built for all architectures, however some
architectures still use gcj as the (only available) Java implementation, and
some OpenJDK zero ports are non-functional at this point, and Debian porters
usually don't care about that. So the
with all the others (probably as a technology preview)...
So, release people: How likely is it that Hurd gets added to jessie?
If added as a 'technology preview', what does that mean exactly?
Note that the tech preview was a softening of a requirement to get added
to wheezy. Which didnt
On 06/05/13 20:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Adding it and then keeping it out of the usual migration rules is asking
for failure from the beginning, accumulating cruft. Not a way to go, IMO.
In that case would there be 150-200 RC-severity bugs introduced right
away by its inclusion? (Packages
Neil McGovern, le Mon 06 May 2013 17:15:45 +0100, a écrit :
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:36:55AM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
OK, I have been significantly out of the loop for a while now but what
do you base that on?
What requirements are we still
Barry deFreese, le Mon 06 May 2013 13:32:04 -0400, a écrit :
Fair enough and no offense taken. As I said, I haven't been contributing for
quite a while now so
they were more questions for myself than anything. Niels actually showed me
the graph and it is a
bit sadder than I had hoped.
Joerg Jaspert, le Mon 06 May 2013 21:27:46 +0200, a écrit :
Adding it and then keeping it out of the usual migration rules is asking
for failure from the beginning, accumulating cruft. Not a way to go, IMO.
Excluding from the migration rules would probably become a headache,
yes. But wouldn't
Steven Chamberlain, le Mon 06 May 2013 21:20:57 +0100, a écrit :
On 06/05/13 20:27, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Adding it and then keeping it out of the usual migration rules is asking
for failure from the beginning, accumulating cruft. Not a way to go, IMO.
In that case would there be 150-200
Hi Samuel,
On 06/05/13 21:35, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Steven Chamberlain, le Mon 06 May 2013 21:20:57 +0100, a écrit :
In that case would there be 150-200 RC-severity bugs introduced right
away by its inclusion?
I would rather say simply dropping them, as already requested in
Bug#704477.
Steven Chamberlain, le Mon 06 May 2013 21:47:00 +0100, a écrit :
On 06/05/13 21:35, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Steven Chamberlain, le Mon 06 May 2013 21:20:57 +0100, a écrit :
In that case would there be 150-200 RC-severity bugs introduced right
away by its inclusion?
I would rather say
Well maybe that was a poor choice of words. I don't even quite understand what
some of the columns
mean, to be honest. But a visceral response to all of the red and yellow
blocks was kind of sad
knowing how much you all (and myself to a MUCH lesser degree) have put into it
over the last
18 matches
Mail list logo
