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

Bug#782770: marked as done (unblock: openjdk-7/7u79-2.5.5-1)

Your message dated Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:07:53 +0100
with message-id <20150424180753.GH22595@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#782770: unblock: openjdk-7/7u79-2.5.5-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #782770,
regarding unblock: openjdk-7/7u79-2.5.5-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
782770: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=782770
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package openjdk-7. It fixes multiple security
issues. ATM the build failed on mips (that was sorted
out with a rebuild the last time w/o any source changes)

unblock openjdk-7/7u79-2.5.5-1

Cheers,
        Moritz

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Control: tag -1 wontfix

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:26:06PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> tOn Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:03:02PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> > Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 05:23:39PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > Please unblock package openjdk-7. It fixes multiple security
> > > issues. ATM the build failed on mips (that was sorted
> > > out with a rebuild the last time w/o any source changes)
> > 
> > I can't get MIPS to build and this isn't going to make the final migrations
> > before release. Would you rather a DSA or proposed-updates?
> 
> Then we'll need an additional DSA for jessie-security, stealing
> our time for a toy port noone uses in practice. Awesome.
> 
> I'm really annoyed with the MIPS porters. If openjdk fails to
> build on MIPS w/o manual builds, why did they paper over this
> with manual builds? If openjdk fails to autobuild on mips, by
> all mean drop support for it!
> 
> For stretch we should limit openjdk support archs official
> supported by upstream, even if it means killing lots of Java
> reverse deps for fringe ports.
> 
> We haven't had openjdk built across all "supported" archs
> for a long time. Look at the mess in proposed-updates:
> https://release.debian.org/proposed-updates/stable.html

I'm sorry about that, but there's not a lot I can do about it...



-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: