It seems that openjdk-8 has so many users, even on i386, that they
noticed this basically immediately (hence this bugreport in the first
case).
What they use it for, they’ll have to say themselves, of course…
(And it’s not like we could just provide it in a PPA for them, as PPAs
are not allowed
Hi Vladimir,
according to
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-8/8u402-ga-8build1 it’s
built, but:
$ rmadison -u ubuntu openjdk-8-jre-headless
openjdk-8-jre-headless | 8u77-b03-3ubuntu3 | xenial
| amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
[…]
Hi Vladimir, rmadison says it’s fixed now and it’s available for i386
again, so I undid the workaround addition.
I’ve just uploaded 8u412, but I’ve re-enabled tests for Debian. Due to
your situation with the i386 packages, you’ll have to regenerate
d/control on noble to get the i386 exclusion (I
(FWIW, last time I looked, it _did_ exist in noble)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2053110
Title:
openjdk-8 402 fails to install in focal, jammy, mantic on i386
Status in
oh ffs, it’s missing (again?) in noble, too?
I’ll add noble to the workaround for 8u412-ga-1, which I’m working on
r/n.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2053110
Title:
Thanks, committed the attribution fix to the git repo.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1916327
Title:
package openjdk-8-jre-headless 8u282-b08-0ubuntu1~20.04 failed to
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1775785
Title:
bfg-repo-cleaner jar file is not compatible with
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2059181
Title:
update-java-alternatives show error with
The (proper) fix is now included in the current packages, but t64
bootstrapping is a bit difficult.
When Vladimir promotes
https://launchpad.net/~vpa1977/+archive/ubuntu/bootstrap-openjdk-
lts/+sourcepub/15913967/+listing-archive-extra to noble-proposed, that
one can then be used to build
Thanks! I applied basically what your patch said (the file is
dynamically generated). This will be in 8u402-ga-7
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Committed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in
Stuck how? (Can you link to the PPA so I can peek at it?)
Did you add noble-proposed to the PPA’s sources?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1916327
Title:
package
Hi again Vladimir,
I did upload a -6 today to temporarily disable the tests to help the ARM
builders across the transition better, so you can also do a sync, I
believe.
Disclaimer: I haven’t tested that on Ubuntu, only Debian, and not yet on
t64-affected architectures (but the powerpc buildds
According to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups/2.4.7-1.2ubuntu1
they did, so you’ll need https://evolvis.org/plugins/scmgit/cgi-
bin/gitweb.cgi?p=alioth/openjdk-8.git;a=commitdiff;h=6586b716485710c94fa2bcb1b85989393f37d856
as well. I’m not uploading this as openjdk-8_8u402-ga-5 to Debian
8u402-ga-4 actually, but first we have to check if Ubuntu indeed stays
with libcups2 (in which case that version should work) or also switches
to libcups2t64 (in which case another change is needed). 8u402-ga-3 had
a… tiny fuckup.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Hi Roman,
Vladimir Petko and I found a solution that retains coïnstallability: on
i386 for focal‥mantic, we fake having the wrapper (as in, all on-disc
files are identical to amd64), but we don’t add the dependency and add a
patch to change the exception to a warning for i386 only.
I’ll upload
Yes, yes, that’s the Multi-Arch problem.
But we can also just build *with* atk-wrapper on all architectures.
(Actually, we now build always with, just pre-disable it on the older
releases.)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to
Hi Roman,
are these problems still present in Ubuntu noble and Debian sid?
Do you have a reproducer?
Samuel is right in that we should not disable it by default *in general*
so bugs get reported when things break. (On the other hand, I note that
11 and 17 just seem to disable it everywhere…)
Indeed, the references you found indicate that jexec cannot be used to
run normal JARs beginning with “PK”. But these, and nothing else, are
what the binfmt is installed for.
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8176066 indicates jexec is slated
for deprecation.
apparently fixed in 8u311
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1797101
Title:
incompatibility with
Does this still not work? If so, we should try to debug this…
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1904586
Title:
Some SSL Client Certificates failing handshake
Status in
You had an aborted previous installation. Please reinstall the
openjdk-8-jdk-headless package and then try again.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in
well, press Enter at that conffile prompt instead of closing the
terminal…
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
well, do a sudo apt-get install openjdk-8-jre-headless
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1770339
Title:
package
well, do a sudo apt-get install openjdk-8-jre-headless
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1772503
Title:
package
please retry, the files are identical between i386 and amd64, at least
now
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
well just press Enter at that conffile prompt instead of closing the
terminal
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
errors.ubuntu.com cannot be viewed
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1729102
Title:
errors.ubuntu.com cannot be viewed
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1729991
Title:
Make sure /etc/.java/.systemPrefs does not exist or is a directory. (Out
of curiosity, did you install Oracle JDK/JRE? Another reporter had that,
and it’s suspect.)
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
The messages are no longer shown, I believe there is now a patch to hide
them.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
The linked-to URL is not available for reading.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1609190
Title:
Closing on reporter’s request.
For what it’s worth, I cannot reproduce this with current openjdk-8 on
Debian stretch with its jedit.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to
This is probably fixed, ZipCrashTest does not crash any more.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1591758
openjdk-8 fixed this by introducing explicit dependencies on the package
carrying mountpoint:
ifneq (,$(filter $(distrel),wheezy jessie precise trusty))
control_vars += '-Vmountpoint:Depends=initscripts'
else
control_vars += '-Vmountpoint:Depends=util-linux (>= 2.26.2-4)'
endif
** Changed
Metal is also a very nice look.
We’re not going to deviate here.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Opinion
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-7 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1581835
openjdk-8-source is in Suggests for openjdk-8-jdk-headless, so the
dangling symlink is not an actual bug.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1723417
Title:
dangling symlink:
well just press Enter at that dpkg conffile prompt instead of closing
the terminal
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
well just press Enter at that conffile prompt
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1706562
Title:
package
please retry, probably a download problem
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686212
Title:
package
well just press Enter at that conffile prompt instead of closing the
terminal
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
upstream says fixed in 8u272
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1861883
Title:
JAAS Krb5LoginModule
You have a somewhat hosed system, possibly due to the proprietary Oracle
JDK package.
There is something wrong with the path /etc/alternatives/java on your
system.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Huh. Can you retry with a newer version?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1784220
Title:
package openjdk-8-jdk:amd64 8u171-b11-0ubuntu0.18.04.1 failed to
install/upgrade:
duplicate of
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-8/+bug/1916327
(different filename but same root cause)
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in
Per https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8237536 that class (as all sun.*
classes) are internals, not public API, and therefore subject to change
without notice.
It’s unfortunate for third-party proprietary software, but you have to
complain to the vendor there.
Copying the class file from older
Make sure /etc/.java/.systemPrefs either does not exist or is a
directory, not a regular file or something.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
duplicate of
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-8/+bug/1916327
(different filename but same root cause)
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to
duplicate of
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-8/+bug/1916327
(different filename but same root cause)
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to
There is nothing about openjdk-8 in the terminal output.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1816193
Title:
We’ll not do this change to openjdk-8 now, as that potentially breaks
other peoples’ builds.
I think openjdk-21 is the current LTS version, with which people can
test their javadocs, or just re-enable doclint per command line.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Opinion
well, try to reinstall the package…
apt-get install openjdk-8-jdk:amd64
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1902669
please retry (after apt-get clean), this looks like a download error
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1904355
duplicate of
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-8/+bug/1916327
(different filename but same root cause)
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to
duplicate of
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-8/+bug/1916327
(different filename but same root cause)
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in
M-A coinstallability bug introduced by:
openjdk-8 (8u252-b09-1ubuntu1) focal; urgency=medium
* Build without atk-wrapper on i386 in focal.
-- Matthias Klose Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:47:49 +0200
@doko: what was the reason?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Duplicate of
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-8/+bug/1916327
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
upstream reported as fixed in 8u302+
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1926634
Title:
openjdk 1.8.0_292
just press Enter at that prompt
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1920593
Title:
package openjdk-8-jre:amd64
8u402 just entered Ubuntu
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1940845
Title:
Unavailability of
fixed in debianutils (5.5-1ubuntu1) jammy
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1949272
Title:
package
8u402 just entered Ubuntu on the 19th
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1979013
Title:
ubuntu's openjdk8
I think store passwords have a minimum of 8 chars, hence the default
password is “changeit”.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1958880
Title:
keytool error:
Cannot reproduce with 8u392-ga-1~deb9u1 so I presume this fixed in
Ubuntu as well, since it uses the same packages these days.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to
I’ll do this in Debian so you can just sync from sid, but I may need a
few days as I have other important things to work on (plus actually get
some sleep in between) right now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
Without a way to reproduce this…
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1544886
Title:
java assert failure:
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-8 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1902712
Title:
tomcat app LDAP authentification fails after
Source: openjdk-8
Version: 8u282-b08-2
Severity: serious
Justification: should not migrate to testing or stable any more
X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de
Keep this package in unstable (and possibly experimental) for now.
It is to be used officially only for bootstrapping JVM-based languages
like
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 24/03/2021 à 23:03, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>
> > Hmmm, considering… does this also mean I’ll need to figure out
> > how to bootstrap it using JDK 11 as bootstrap compiler? Probably…
>
> Good point, if it doesn't build w
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 24/03/2021 à 22:13, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
>
> > I can certainly bring it back to unstable, built with
> > gcc 10, if there are no major issues involved in making
> > it build with GCC 10, if there is interest.
>
> W
As far as I see, openjdk-8 (8u275-b01-1) contains this patch, so it was
backported upstream.
** Changed in: openjdk-8 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenJDK,
which is subscribed to openjdk-9 in Ubuntu.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I have released this to stretch and jessie (after some testing on the latter).
Thanks!
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Let me know how those tests go and we can proceed from there.
It builds, with the usual “most tests pass”, and the test
program I threw at it also works.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn •
ian/changelog2020-12-02 09:51:35.0
+0100
+++ openjdk-8-8u275-b01/debian/changelog2020-12-02 11:15:53.0
+0100
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+openjdk-8 (8u275-b01-1~deb9u1) stretch-security; urgency=medium
+
+ * Team upload.
+ * Provide 8u275-b01 (GA) regression fixes
+
+ -- Thors
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, tony mancill wrote:
> +1, both for getting this into the Debian and I am also offering to
> help (if that helps).
OK, I’m preparing this for sid now, will also quickly test it a bit,
even if I don’t have many applications using it.
Once that’s in some more testing is
Hi *,
should we merge that to sid and stretch-security?
openjdk-8 (8u275-b01-0ubuntu1) hirsute; urgency=medium
* Update to 8u275-b01 (GA). Patch aarch32 and aarch64 to 8u275-b01.
* Regression fixes:
- JDK-8214440: ldap over a TLS connection negotiate failed with
Package: openjdk-11-jdk-headless
Version: 11.0.9.1+1-1
Followup-For: Bug #969038
X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de
Yes, please *do* take care of this, ideally also in buster,
as this seriously degrades the usability of the software.
For example, JDK 8 had javah but JDK 11 doesn’t, and it’s
supposed
Package: openjdk-11-jre-headless
Version: 11.0.9.1+1-1
Followup-For: Bug #972245
X-Debbugs-Cc: t...@mirbsd.de
Just updating the version for this is still present.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
APT prefers unstable-debug
APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500,
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> my colleges would like to have openjdk-14 in buster-backports.
AIUI we’ll have (only) openjdk-11 in bullseye so no.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49
Hi Moritz,
> Yeah, I wanted to let it settle in unstable for a few days, but a
> stretch-security build is already running and should appear in the
> next days.
yeah, that’s sensible, although I don’t know how many sid users
use Java 8 (I run a Jenkins instance under it); the smoketests
that
Hi tony,
> source package uploaded to Debian unstable against stretch for a
> stretch-security upload. I should be able to complete the builds and
> smoke-tests by the end of the week and will upload once I get the
> go-ahead from the Security Team.
did you have a chance to look at my upload to
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I’ll upload to sid if things seem to work, as discussed. I’ve also
Done now, it built, with the usual handful of test failures, but
most passing, and Jenkins still works after upgrading, so…
Things I noticed afterwards:
• debian/generate-*.sh can
Dixi quod…
> I’ve prepared an upload, which I’m currently building locally in
> cowbuilder, for testing it a bit
I had forgotten just how long the testsuite runs. I guess I’m
calling it a night and continue testing when it built tomorrow.
> (any suggestions, other than run a few applications?)
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020, tony mancill wrote:
> Thorsten, if you have cycles to handle the GA upload to unstable, please
I’ve prepared an upload, which I’m currently building locally in
cowbuilder, for testing it a bit (any suggestions, other than run
a few applications?). I’ve looked at and merged
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020, tony mancill wrote:
> Thorsten, if you have cycles to handle the GA upload to unstable, please
> go ahead and do so. Otherwise, I will do it by the end of the week.
OK, will do so, I can justify doing this partially during daytime ☻
Thanks,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions
Hi tony,
> on January 28th as a reminder). I am in process of building the 8u242
> source package uploaded to Debian unstable against stretch for a
thanks for the update, but… Debian unstable has not yet been updated
to the GA release yet. Perhaps doing that first would be sensible?
If I can
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> What I don’t understand is why the new version isn’t uploaded
It’s been over three weeks since the release, what (besides
GCC breaking everything) gives?
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • h
Hi *,
what’s the status of that? There’s a prerelease in sid, and
the Canonical employees have already updated even ancient
versions of *buntu, but there’s nothing in Debian, nor in
the packaging repository.
This is probably security-relevant for stretch… and GA was
planned to be released two
Package: openjdk-11-jdk-headless
Version: 11.0.3+7-2
Followup-For: Bug #910696
openjdk-11-jdk-headless:x32: broken-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-x32/src.zip -> ../openjdk-11/src.zip
tglase@tglase:~ $ ll /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-x32/src.zip
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Apr 18 04:54
Source: openjdk-8
Version: 8u212-b01-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi doko,
I’ve rebuilt the latest openjdk-8 on precise/trusty/xenial and
wheezy/jessie (seeing you’re providing the newer releases with
updates already) and found two issues (besides the testsuite
taking ages or JAVA_HOME not
Package: openjdk-11-jdk-headless
Version: 11.0.2+7-1
Severity: important
I saw in https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217581 that
“ (The page for JDK 9 does list correct values.) ” and I was like,
hey, I’ve seen it on my system too!
Turns out that yes.
tglase@tglase:~ $ realpath
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Matthias Klose wrote:
> no, why are you exaggerating? Both the jre and the jdk are usable.
The javadoc tool isn’t, and this breaks all builds.
I’ve enacted the workaround in the meantime, even if this
goes against the documented javadoc options…
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent
Package: openjdk-11-jdk
Version: 11.0.2+7-1
Severity: grave
Tags: patch
Justification: renders package unusable
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:3.0.1:jar (attach-javadocs) on
project octopus-rpctunnel: MavenReportException: Error while generating
Dixi quod…
> Note I haven’t finished building it yet so it’s untested.
I’ve tested it now, on stretch. It works.
> But I’d still love to see it uploaded to Debian proper.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 •
Closes: #911925)
+See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911925#38
+
+ -- Thorsten Glaser Fri, 02 Nov 2018 14:24:41 +0100
+
openjdk-8 (8u181-b13-2~deb9u1) stretch-security; urgency=medium
* Rebuild for stretch-security
diff -Nru openjdk-8-8u181-b13/debian/patches/f54dcf
Hi Martijn,
this has not been fixed in Debian, it affects openjdk-8 and openjdk-10
there.
As far as has been analysed to date, this is caused by a new, stricter,
JAR check that went from OpenJDK to Debian/*buntu’s Java 10 and 8 (but
not Debian’s Java 11), missing that the new check should be
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Norbert Preining wrote:
> building jars with jdk11 (as distributed by Debian) at the moment
> seems to create lass file version 54.0 files, but running them on
> Debian supplied jdk8 is not possible:
Indeed.
You have to compile with javac with the --release 8 option,
which
Dixi quod…
> > This is an intentional upstream change
>
> Considering https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911925#38
> no, it isn’t, it’s supposed to default to disabled.
Which is probably the reason it works in OpenJDK 11, considering.
This answers a part of this mystery:
|
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Mannix, Brendan wrote:
> 2.22.1
>
> false
>
Actually this has other implications. At least one person reported
in https://stackoverflow.com/a/53083806/2171120 that it breaks
other things, such as “class loading in some of my Spring Boot
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> This is an intentional upstream change
Considering https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911925#38
no, it isn’t, it’s supposed to default to disabled.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn •
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Mannix, Brendan wrote:
> I worked around this issue for my team today by upgrading to surefire
> 2.22.1 and adding the element below to the configuration:
>
> 2.22.1
>
> false
>
Thanks, that might prove useful if Surefire and OpenJDK
people
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
