Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.java > #11219 > unrolled thread

openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.java

Contents

  openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW) Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2019-05-26 21:20 +0200
    Re: openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW) Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> - 2019-05-26 23:50 +0200
    Re: openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW) Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> - 2019-05-27 22:30 +0200
    Re: openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW) Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2019-05-27 23:10 +0200
      Re: openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW) Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de> - 2019-05-27 23:10 +0200
      Re: openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW) Saif Abdul Cassim <saif.15@cse.mrt.ac.lk> - 2019-05-28 11:50 +0200
      Re: openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW) John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-05-28 11:50 +0200

#11219 — openjdk-8 re-uploaded to unstable (currently in NEW)

The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable (although
the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again in
NEW, targeting unstable.  One of the FTP assistants is objecting to the upload
to unstable, apparently because somebody (security team, Moritz?) asked to
restore these packages in experimental instead of unstable.  Otoh, we still need
these packages in unstable to bootstrap kotlin (yes we can bootstrap in
experimental, but then it's not assured how to build kotlin for unstable with an
experimental build).

I honestly don't understand why FTP master would have such an objection, so
please clarify what prohibits the acceptance to unstable with an RC issue to not
propagate these packages to testing.

Matthias

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11222

Le 26/05/2019 à 21:13, Matthias Klose a écrit :

> The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable (although
> the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again in
> NEW, targeting unstable.

Thank you for the upload Matthias.

> I honestly don't understand why FTP master would have such an objection, so
> please clarify what prohibits the acceptance to unstable with an RC issue to not
> propagate these packages to testing.

+1

Building Kotlin is going to become critical to keep the Java ecosystem
in Debian up to date. The situation is already quite complicated and it
would be nice not to add more hurdles with and experimental only
openjdk-8 package.

Thank you,

Emmanuel Bourg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11244

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 09:13:38PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable (although
> the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again in
> NEW, targeting unstable.  One of the FTP assistants is objecting to the upload
> to unstable, apparently because somebody (security team, Moritz?) asked to
> restore these packages in experimental instead of unstable.  Otoh, we still need
> these packages in unstable to bootstrap kotlin (yes we can bootstrap in
> experimental, but then it's not assured how to build kotlin for unstable with an
> experimental build).
> 
> I honestly don't understand why FTP master would have such an objection, so
> please clarify what prohibits the acceptance to unstable with an RC issue to not
> propagate these packages to testing.

I don't see any issue with these re-entering unstable. For openjdk-7 we only
kept it in experimental as they were exclusively used to stage the -security
uploads, but if there are other use cases like kotlin it seems perfectly
fine to keep it in unstable as well.

Cheers,
        Moritz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11245

On 26.05.19 21:13, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The openjdk-8 packages which were unfortunately removed from unstable (although
> the issue #915620 only asked for the removal of some binaries), are now again in
> NEW, targeting unstable.  One of the FTP assistants is objecting to the upload
> to unstable, apparently because somebody (security team, Moritz?) asked to
> restore these packages in experimental instead of unstable.  Otoh, we still need
> these packages in unstable to bootstrap kotlin (yes we can bootstrap in
> experimental, but then it's not assured how to build kotlin for unstable with an
> experimental build).
> 
> I honestly don't understand why FTP master would have such an objection, so
> please clarify what prohibits the acceptance to unstable with an RC issue to not
> propagate these packages to testing.

The packages are now accepted and the 8u212-b03 upstream version is now uploaded
as well.

The changes and buildinfo files didn't exist anymore for the powerpc, ppc64,
sparc64 and x32 binaries, so if a porter wants to restore those, please rebuild
them with manually installed openjdk-8 packages from snapshot.debian.org.

Matthias

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11246

On Mon, 27 May 2019, Matthias Klose wrote:

> The changes and buildinfo files didn't exist anymore for the powerpc, ppc64,
> sparc64 and x32 binaries, so if a porter wants to restore those, please rebuild
> them with manually installed openjdk-8 packages from snapshot.debian.org.

Will do for x32.

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 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg

**********

Mit der tarent Academy bieten wir auch Trainings und Schulungen in den
Bereichen Softwareentwicklung, Agiles Arbeiten und Zukunftstechnologien an.

Besuchen Sie uns auf www.tarent.de/academy. Wir freuen uns auf Ihren Kontakt.

**********

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11253

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Kotlin needs jdk 8 to build.

On Tue, 28 May 2019, 3:13 pm John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, <
glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On 5/27/19 11:04 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > The packages are now accepted and the 8u212-b03 upstream version is now
> uploaded
> > as well.
> >
> > The changes and buildinfo files didn't exist anymore for the powerpc,
> ppc64,
> > sparc64 and x32 binaries, so if a porter wants to restore those, please
> rebuild
> > them with manually installed openjdk-8 packages from snapshot.debian.org
> .
>
> Yes, I can do that. So, if I understand correctly, Kotlin requires
> OpenJDK-8
> to work?
>
> Adrian
>
> --
>  .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
> `. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
>   `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11254

Hi!

On 5/27/19 11:04 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The packages are now accepted and the 8u212-b03 upstream version is now uploaded
> as well.
> 
> The changes and buildinfo files didn't exist anymore for the powerpc, ppc64,
> sparc64 and x32 binaries, so if a porter wants to restore those, please rebuild
> them with manually installed openjdk-8 packages from snapshot.debian.org.

Yes, I can do that. So, if I understand correctly, Kotlin requires OpenJDK-8
to work?

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.java

csiph-web