| === tdaitx_ is now known as tdaitx | ||
| tdaitx | doko, hi! so, openjdk 6b37 source is available on debian, are you planning to sync that to ubuntu any time soon? my interest in this is to decide whether I upload a new package for the security team or just wait for a Xenial one and backport it | 20:51 |
|---|---|---|
| doko | tdaitx, now done, and filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-6/+bug/1518073 | 20:54 |
| doko | hmm, tdaitx, did you check that the generated control file is the same? | 20:55 |
| tdaitx | doko, only on openjdk 7 it was the same, for openjdk 6 there were a few differences | 20:57 |
| tdaitx | doko, I mean, between wily and xenial | 20:57 |
| doko | ? | 20:58 |
| tdaitx | doko, on openjdk7 the d/control file was the same for xenial and wily IIRC | 20:58 |
| tdaitx | as for openjdk 6 it was slight different between wily and xenial | 20:59 |
| tdaitx | (on openjdk 6 dependencies were declared as '>=' on wily and '=' on xenial) | 20:59 |
| tdaitx | doko, does that answer your questions or did I get your question wrong? | 21:00 |
| doko | tdaitx, right, so we probably have to unify this, or regenerate the control file before upload | 21:01 |
| tdaitx | doko, the d/control for the openjdk6 package I pointed you to was for Xenial, did you regenerate it for unstable before the upload? | 21:02 |
| doko | yes | 21:02 |
| doko | I'll have a look what we can unify. we can discard the >=/= diffs because we don't need to support lucid anymore | 21:03 |
| tdaitx | doko, oh, that was from lucid | 21:03 |
| tdaitx | I didn't know | 21:04 |
| tdaitx | doko, is it ok to remove those older versions as well? should we do it for this update? | 21:06 |
| doko | no, has time | 21:09 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!