On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:02:55 +0200 Mehdi Dogguy <me...@dogguy.org> wrote: > Control: tags -1 + confirmed > Control: severity -1 serious > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 01:13:22PM +0000, Matthias Klose <d...@debian.org> > wrote: > > - Decide if the symbols matching __cxx11 or B5cxx11 are part of the > > library API, and are used by the reverse dependencies of the > > library. > > > > There are some std::string exposed in the public API. > > > - If there are no reverse dependencies, it should be the package > > maintainers decision if a transition is needed. However this might > > break software which is not in the Debian archive, and built > > against these packages. > > > > It seems that there are no reverse dependencies.
Dear openvrml maintainers: I have started on an NMU to address the Java8 FTBFS bugs, but haven't yet uploaded it because of the ABI transition bug. These are the changes so far for the NMU: > openvrml (0.18.9-7.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium > > * Non-maintainer upload. > * Package is listed as LowNMU. > * Address FTBFS with OpenJDK 8. (Closes: #748045, #760928) > Thanks to Emmanuel Bourg for the patches. > - Updates cflags and cxxflags to include JAVA_HOME/include/linux > - Adds 0004-java8-compatibility.patch. > > -- tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:32:24 -0700 Do you have an opinion about whether there are 3rd party packages using libopenvrml9 as a dependency, and thus whether a 'v5' transitional library package is needed? Thank you, tony
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
