Re: Bug#893409: pixelmed FTBFS with openjdk-9
Hi Olivier,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 06:37:04PM +0100, Olivier Sallou wrote:
> >> Adding this lib to deps should fix the pb
>
> - I have fixed the problem, updating patch (lib needed to be added to
> other Makefile)
Cool! Thanks a lot for your work. Its really appreciated.
> - There were some other issues with an old jdk package moved to an other
> location, from JDK 9 in 2016, which is not exported [0]. Surprisingly it
> compiles anyway, but does it work as expected....??
I have no idea at all. I do not even have an expectation what the
program should do. I simply inherited the maintenance from Mathieu
Malaterre who injected a lot of medical imaging stuff and decided to
leave the team later. The package has quite a number of users (compared
to other specialised software) - so I expect users to report issues if
it does not work.
> It seems there is a
> new API (java.lang.ref.Cleaner) but I'm not sure it could be replaced as
> easily (and without knowing side effects), it should be updated by upstream
Upstream is dead.
> In the meanwhile I renamed the related package in patch.
>
> - vecmath needed to be added as well in Makefile (done)
>
> - javadoc generation classpath needed to be updated as well (done)
>
> - I think that vecmath and jaxb-api jars will need to be added in
> runtime classpath (debian/DicomXX etc..) as well (NOT done)
>
> - 4 tests are failing (surprisingly, packaging continues)
>
> - lintian: some errors, documentation is not in correct directory
> (libpixelmed-java-doc expects files in
> /usr/share/doc/libpixelmed-java-doc but doc is in
> /usr/share/doc/libpixelmed-java) (NOT fixed)
The latter is caused by the debhelper switch. I'll care for this.
> I have pushed my updates to git (file not found , certainly a result not
> generated, but no additional info)
Thanks again. I'll have a look tomorrow and will ask back in case
of further issues.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> [0] https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8148117
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: