On 06.08.2016 10:18, Guido Günther wrote: > 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. Now that the decision has been made to update icedtea-plugin I agree that it needs some sort of announcement to inform LTS users. I would have mentioned it as part of the OpenJDK 7 announcement as a side note but a standalone DLA will also do. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature