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

Re: Icedtea plugin



Hi,
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:49:33PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 02/08/16 19:48, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 01/08/16 23:26, Markus Koschany wrote:
> >> On 01.08.2016 23:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>> On 31/07/16 19:41, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently, icedtea-plugin depends on icedtea-6-plugin, i.e. Java6. Given
> >>>>> openjdk-6 is unsupported, we should change it to depend on icedtea-7-plugin
> >>>>> instead. See the attached source debdiff (the control file is autogenerated).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If no-one objects, I will upload that soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It looks good to me.
> >>>
> >>> Markus said on IRC that another option was to mark icedtea-plugin and
> >>> icedtea-6-plugin as unsupported. However, I think we should only do that for
> >>> icedtea-6-plugin, and update the metapackage to depend on Java7.
> >>
> >> Yes, it wouldn't hurt to update the dependency package icedtea-plugin.
> >> As far as I know it has no important reverse-dependencies though, for
> >> instance OpenJDk 6 only suggests it. So we could also just mark it as
> >> unsupported but I leave the decision up to you.
> > 
> > I think icedtea-plugin should be kept updated and point to the supported
> > version, so that people can keep it installed and automatically get the next
> > supported version when/if it is changed again, whether in Wheezy or in future
> > releases.
> > 
> > Since the change is simple, I'll look at uploading it soon.
> 
> Uploaded.
> 
> I'm not sure whether this deserves a DLA. Probably not, as openjdk-6 is already
> marked as unsupported, and there already was [1]. Though I could send something
> similar to that, without a DLA number, if that was deemed convenient. Thoughts,
> anyone?

I was under the impression that every upload to wheezy-security gets a
DLA since it's a security archive. That's why I e.g. put out DLAs for
enigmail and mozilla-devscripts although these weren't security
updates per se but rebuilds due to the new icedove.

Cheers,
 -- Guido


Reply to: