On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:45:46PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 26/05/2015 16:52, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
I think we should decide what our Java baseline is and how it affects
release archs_before_ changing this.
The best we can do I think is to identify the applications that should
On 05/26/2015 11:49 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2015-05-27 08:09, tony mancill wrote:
[...]
However, couldn't we use versioned build-deps on default-jdk + the
virtual runtime dependency for the binary package to accomplish the same
effect? For any software that requires Java7, we would
On 27.05.2015 11:41, Rene Engelhard wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:45:46PM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 26/05/2015 16:52, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
I think we should decide what our Java baseline is and how it affects
release archs_before_ changing this.
I think changing the Lintian
Am 27.05.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Rene Engelhard wrote:
I know, there at least we need to kill gcj support. But until then. Or
we decide we don't care ab out 1.5/gcj now. Explicitely.
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Markus Koschany wrote:
Niels and Emmanuel have
Le 27/05/2015 15:41, Jan Henke a écrit :
I think gcj serves one single purpose only at this point in time:
Bootstrapping during the OpenJDK build.
This is no longer true with OpenJDK 8 unfortunately, Java 7 is now required.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Rene Engelhard wrote:
I know, there at least we need to kill gcj support. But until then. Or
we decide we don't care ab out 1.5/gcj now. Explicitely.
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Markus Koschany wrote:
Niels and Emmanuel have already pointed out the most important facts why
we
Package: lintian
Bash is still marked as essential while not providing the system shell anymore.
Before removing this attribute (probably not for the stretch release),
additional build dependencies and dependencies on bash need to be introduced.
- bash needed for a binary package. that usually
Am 27.05.2015 um 16:06 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
Le 27/05/2015 15:41, Jan Henke a écrit :
I think gcj serves one single purpose only at this point in time:
Bootstrapping during the OpenJDK build.
This is no longer true with OpenJDK 8 unfortunately, Java 7 is now required.
You can still
On 05/27/2015 03:41 PM, Jan Henke wrote:
Am 27.05.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Rene Engelhard wrote:
I know, there at least we need to kill gcj support. But until then. Or
we decide we don't care ab out 1.5/gcj now. Explicitely.
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Markus
Le 27 mai 2015 08:28:59 GMT+02:00, Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at a écrit
:
Hi Paul,
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
Doesn't appear to be a clear statement to me. I would expect
something
like ... and may be *modified*, copied ... in the other part.
Umpf, is this something we have
Processing control commands:
tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #787009 [lintian] please add lintian warnings to prepare removing bash as
an essential package
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
787009: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=787009
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 2015-05-27 19:56, Matthias Klose wrote:
Package: lintian
Bash is still marked as essential while not providing the system shell
anymore.
Before removing this attribute (probably not for the stretch release),
additional build dependencies and dependencies on
On Tue, 26 May 2015 17:54:17 +0200 Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
On 2015-05-26 17:25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
recommendation is to declare that:
* gcj-jdk is not
Hi Paul,
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
Doesn't appear to be a clear statement to me. I would expect something
like ... and may be *modified*, copied ... in the other part.
Umpf, is this something we have to bring to debian-legal?
IANAL, but I see *several* open source projects
On 2015-05-27 08:09, tony mancill wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 17:54:17 +0200 Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
On 2015-05-26 17:25, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Niels Thykier wrote:
I agree that the is a good idea to clarify this. My personal
recommendation is to declare
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Bastien Roucaries wrote:
Anyway, I am out here. There is nothing more I can contribute
(besides that I simply will add a lintian override)
Override does not work un this case. Ftpmaster will autoreject
Huuu, how can a wrong lintian warning/error be a reason for
ftpmaster
16 matches
Mail list logo
