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

Re: Icedtea plugin

On 06/08/16 10:38, Markus Koschany wrote:
> 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.

ftr, I have sent an announcement, which was reviewed on irc.


Reply to: