reproducible.debian.net status changes for svgsalamander

2017-04-11 09:15 https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/unstable/amd64/svgsalamander changed from reproducible -> unreproducible __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team . Please use

Bug#858876: libjna-jni: causes NoClassDefFoundError

Am 11.04.2017 um 22:33 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > On 04/11/2017 08:12 PM, Markus Koschany wrote: > >> This issue could be resolved by changing the libary name to >> jnidispatch.system in Netbeans. However I don't understand why we had to >> change the name in the first place. > > Actually

bouncycastle_1.49+dfsg-3+deb8u2_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into proposed-updates->stable-new

Mapping stable-security to proposed-updates. Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:44:53 +0200 Source: bouncycastle Binary: libbcprov-java libbcprov-java-doc libbcmail-java libbcmail-java-doc libbcpkix-java libbcpkix-java-doc

Processing of bouncycastle_1.49+dfsg-3+deb8u2_amd64.changes

bouncycastle_1.49+dfsg-3+deb8u2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: bouncycastle_1.49+dfsg-3+deb8u2.dsc bouncycastle_1.49+dfsg-3+deb8u2.debian.tar.xz libbcprov-java_1.49+dfsg-3+deb8u2_all.deb libbcprov-java-doc_1.49+dfsg-3+deb8u2_all.deb

Bug#858876: libjna-jni: causes NoClassDefFoundError

On 04/11/2017 08:12 PM, Markus Koschany wrote: > This issue could be resolved by changing the libary name to > jnidispatch.system in Netbeans. However I don't understand why we had to > change the name in the first place. Actually Netbeans shouldn't have to specify the library name at all.

Bug#858876: libjna-jni: causes NoClassDefFoundError

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 08:13:00 + Niels Thykier wrote: [...] > Any update on this? This bug is one of the last ~60 RC bugs in key > packages for the stretch release. :) Hi, I had a look at this issue. If we introduce the symlink libjnidispatch.so -> libjnidispatch.system.so

Bug#860068: Processed: Re: Bug#860068: tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647

Am 11.04.2017 um 17:44 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso: [...] >> I suggest to use the found/fixed tags as >> needed. > > NB: Which is exactly what I did (see the different found versions), to > track correctly the version as well in BTS. But now it would treat > e.g. CVE-2017-5650 as well as found

Bug#860068: Processed: Re: Bug#860068: tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647

Hi, On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 05:24:25PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 11.04.2017 um 17:18 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso: > > Hi Markus, > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 02:18:14PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > >> Processing control commands: > >> > >>> merge 860068 860069 860070

Bug#860068: Processed: Re: Bug#860068: tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647

Am 11.04.2017 um 17:18 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso: > Hi Markus, > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 02:18:14PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >> Processing control commands: >> >>> merge 860068 860069 860070 860071 >> Bug #860068 [src:tomcat8] tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647 >> Bug #860069

Re: Processed: Re: Bug#860068: tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647

Hi Markus, On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 02:18:14PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Processing control commands: > > > merge 860068 860069 860070 860071 > Bug #860068 [src:tomcat8] tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647 > Bug #860069 [src:tomcat8] tomcat8: CVE-2017-5648 > Marked as found in versions

Processed: Re: Bug#860068: tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647

Processing control commands: > merge 860068 860069 860070 860071 Bug #860068 [src:tomcat8] tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647 Bug #860069 [src:tomcat8] tomcat8: CVE-2017-5648 Marked as found in versions tomcat8/8.5.11-1. Bug #860068 [src:tomcat8] tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647 Marked as found in versions

Bug#860068: tomcat8: CVE-2017-5647

Control: merge 860068 860069 860070 860071 Control: owner 860068 ! I will take care of these CVEs. To reduce the noise on the list I'm going to merge all four reports into one. Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team

Bug#859973: marked as done (jython: please make the javadoc build reproducible)

Your message dated Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:59:45 +0100 with message-id <20170411125945.gb19...@blind.goeswhere.com> and subject line jython: doesn't actually have timestamps in javadoc has caused the Debian Bug report #859973, regarding jython: please make the javadoc build reproducible to be marked