openjdk team mailing list archive

[tony mancill <tmancill@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/11/2015 04:06 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04/12/2015 12:52 AM, peter green wrote:
>>>
>>> This version of openjdk-7-doc doesn't contain any files other than the
>>> copyright file and the changelog. The version in testing (7u75-2.5.4-2) is ok.
>>
>> The underlying bug has been known for over 2 years, basically if the arch all
>> packages for openjdk is built on anything other than a handful of specific
>> architectures (i386, amd64 or lpia) it will build without docs. You can see a
>> report of the issue at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690260
>>
>> For 7u75-2.5.4-3 the maintainer upload was "source ppc64el all", this strongly
>> implies that the arch all packages were built on a ppc64el system hence exposing
>> the bug.
>>
>> The issue could be papered over by bumping the version number and building and
>> uploading on i386 and amd64 but IMO it should really be fixed properly. Building
>> broken arch all packages depending on the build machine architecture is a very
>> nasty bug IMO.
> 
> building the docs on zero archs is broken.  So the proper fix is to stop
> building openjdk on zero archs, or to port hotspot to these architectures.  I
> can't do the latter, so I'll do the former for stretch.  until then you have to
> upload the package built on an hotspot arch.  I have adjusted the architecture
> list in the packaging VCS.

Since it doesn't appear that we can request a binNMU (according to [0]
arch:all packages won't be built), are there any objections to an NMU of
the 7u75-2.5.4-3 source package built on amd64?  Or would a member of
the OpenJDK Team prefer to do a non-NMU upload?

Thank you,
tony

[0] https://wiki.debian.org/binNMU

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature