=== tdaitx_ is now known as tdaitx
[20:51] <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
[20:54] <doko> tdaitx, now done, and filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjdk-6/+bug/1518073
[20:55] <doko> hmm, tdaitx, did you check that the generated control file is the same?
[20:57] <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
[20:58] <doko> ?
[20:58] <tdaitx> doko, on openjdk7 the d/control file was the same for xenial and wily IIRC
[20:59] <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)
[21:00] <tdaitx> doko, does that answer your questions or did I get your question wrong?
[21:01] <doko> tdaitx, right, so we probably have to unify this, or regenerate the control file before upload
[21:02] <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
[21:03] <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
[21:04] <tdaitx> I didn't know
[21:06] <tdaitx> doko, is it ok to remove those older versions as well? should we do it for this update?
[21:09] <doko> no, has time