Re: zookeeper FTBFS with gcj as default-jdk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 25/03/14 00:09, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 23/03/2014 22:12, Tim Retout a écrit :
>
>>> What's the right thing to do when Java packages can only build
>>> against openjdk-7-jdk, and not gcj?
> Hi Tim,
>
> gcj is stuck with Java 5 and no longer supported upstream. It's
> nice if a package still works with gcj, but it wouldn't be
> reasonable to invest more energy into supporting it. This energy
> would be better spent on porting openjdk to these architectures.
The versioning on the BD for default-jdk used to exclude architectures
less than Java 6 (gcj or otherwise):
default-jdk (>= 1:1.6),
I guess that's not working so well now - it needs an epoch bump:
default-jdk | 2:1.5-51 | jessie | kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, sparc
default-jdk | 2:1.5-51 | sid | hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64,
kfreebsd-i386, sparc
default-jdk | 2:1.7-51 | jessie | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, mips,
mipsel, powerpc, s390x
default-jdk | 2:1.7-51 | sid | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, mips,
mipsel, powerpc, s390x
- --
James Page
Ubuntu and Debian Developer
james.page@ubuntu.com
jamespage@debian.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=pWuh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: