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

Re: Icedtea plugin

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.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: