[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Unsupported packages for Wheezy LTS

Am 29.02.2016 um 15:17 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> Another package which needs to be sorted out is the support for
>> Java. wheezy has both openjdk-6 and openjdk-7 (jessie has only
>> -7 and stretch will also only have one version).
> I asked our current sponsors about OpenJDK 6 and none asked
> us to keep supporting it. They are satisfied with having only
> OpenJDK 7 supported in wheezy.
>> sense to only support openjdk-7 in Debian LTS. Some rdeps in
>> wheezy will not allow that, but I think most people use openjdk
>> to run external java apps and not the Java apps packaged in
>> Debian (with maybe Tomcat as the exception).
> Yes, we need to investigate that. I just stumbled on a few packages
> with "openjdk-6-jre | java6-runtime" in their dependencies (like
> "entagged" or "389-console").
> A complete list should be made to see the impact and decide what should
> happen to those packages...

Matthias Klose, the OpenJDK maintainer, stated that he intends to
support OpenJDK 6 until Ubuntu 12.04 reaches EOL in April 2017 [1] and I
think it should be feasible to mirror this approach for Wheezy LTS
provided everyone agrees to keep OpenJDK 6 supported until then.

We discussed the switch to OpenJDK 7 last month [2] and I think the
problematic packages are only those that strictly depend on
openjdk-6-jre like tunnelx and rcran-r-java. Everything else that
declares an alternative dependency on java6-runtime or default-jre
should be fine because OpenJDK 7 provides these dependencies.

In addition I would also suggest to add Tomcat 6 to the list of
unsupported packages when it is declared EOL on December 31, 2016 [3]
and recommend the switch to Tomcat 7.



[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2016/01/msg00069.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2016/01/msg00112.html
[3] https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-60-eol.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: