On 23/10/15 07:54, dean wrote:
> On 10/23/15 13:50, Steve Dougherty wrote:
>> * I don't think v29 is preferable to contrib master. master is split
>>   into multiple jars,  which is better and I'm hoping we can move to it.
> My thoughts on this were: The debian package should use exactly the same
> code as everybody else does. Isn't contrib master considered untested? I
> planned to trial contrib master in branch until freenet used contrib
> master too. Am I being silly? Should I just use master?
I thought there were more recent changes on v29 than on master? There
were a couple of important bugfixes, are they in master?

Also, do both versions of Contrib use Maven?
>> * Does the wrapper not work with the packaged Debian version? In my
>>   experience it'll sometimes work despite a mismatch. 
> It appears to work.
>>   I don't know if that's unstable.
> Me either, that's the problem. The wrapper warning scared me off:
> WARNING - The Wrapper jar file currently in use is version "3.3.1" while
> the version of the Wrapper which launched this JVM is "3.5.26". The
> Wrapper may appear to work correctly but some features may not function
> correctly.  This configuration has not been tested and is not supported.
> This could still be a problem.
>
> It should be fairly trivial to update the wrapper freenet uses shouldn't
> it? Maybe I'll look at this later, or when the build system gets upgraded.
There should *not* be a wrapper mismatch. We should use the newer
version of the wrapper for both the jar and the native binaries. In the
released version we ship wrapper.jar *in addition to* freenet-ext.jar,
and use wrapper.jar, and we don't get a version mismatch IIRC. Of course
this means we have to update both the binary and the jar at the same
time, which is the hard bit.
>> * Why not depend on Bouncy Castle? I'd rather make a Debian package for
>>   1.52 and use that.
> Me too. The problem is in the making of the package. I'm subscribed to
> the debian-java mail list and there has been mention of updating it, but
> who knows when. I was trying to make this package usable right now and
> depending on an old lib freenet will refuse to use is just a waste of
> disk space.
So eventually we need to submit a more recent version of bcprov to
experimental - or host it ourselves (using a different name maybe).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to