Re: zookeeper FTBFS with gcj as default-jdk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 25/03/14 09:40, James Page wrote:
> On 25/03/14 00:09, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 23/03/2014 22:12, Tim Retout a écrit :
>
>>>> What's the right thing to do when Java packages can only
>>>> build against openjdk-7-jdk, and not gcj?
>> Hi Tim,
>
>> gcj is stuck with Java 5 and no longer supported upstream. It's
>> nice if a package still works with gcj, but it wouldn't be
>> reasonable to invest more energy into supporting it. This energy
>> would be better spent on porting openjdk to these architectures.
>
> The versioning on the BD for default-jdk used to exclude
> architectures less than Java 6 (gcj or otherwise):
>
> default-jdk (>= 1:1.6),
>
> I guess that's not working so well now - it needs an epoch bump:
>
> default-jdk | 2:1.5-51 | jessie | kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386,
> sparc default-jdk | 2:1.5-51 | sid | hurd-i386,
> kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, sparc default-jdk | 2:1.7-51 |
> jessie | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x
> default-jdk | 2:1.7-51 | sid | amd64, armel, armhf, i386,
> mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390x
Fix pushed to the git repo.
- --
James Page
Ubuntu and Debian Developer
james.page@ubuntu.com
jamespage@debian.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=NXMV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: