Hi Ingo, Am 17.02.19 um 16:45 schrieb Ingo Bauersachs: > Tony, Markus > >> [...] >> Any thoughts on whether we should focus on fixing javadoc generation or >> look at other ways to mitigate the FTBFS? > > I've been notified that weupnp [1] has been marked for autoremoval [2] > because of this Javadoc thing, while other packages are not, e.g. > servlet-api [3]. > Following the discussions and the merges/splits/reassignments of the > original bug, I'm not quite sure what action to take, if any. I'd like to > avoid that weupnp is being removed. Is disabling the Javadoc > generation/installation and looking for a sponsor the best way to go? ...Just reading tony's email. Yes, I'm absolutely fine with that. I don't think you have to request any binNMUs because those existing -doc packages should just work at the moment. I don't know if there is any downside to our approach but my general feeling is it can't be that severe. We should reassign all RC bugs of affected packages to maven-javadoc-plugin, then the automatic removal messages will stop as well. Cheers, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature