On 15 April 2014 17:55, Fedora Rawhide Report rawhide@fedoraproject.orgwrote:
Broken deps for i386
[sinjdoc] sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >= 0:1.0.70 sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >= 0:1.0.70
Can sinjdoc be retired now? I can't think of a case where you would use it over the OpenJDK implementation of javadoc.
* Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk [2014-04-16 04:36]:
On 15 April 2014 17:55, Fedora Rawhide Report rawhide@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Broken deps for i386 ---------------------------------------------------------- [sinjdoc] sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >= 0:1.0.70 sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >= 0:1.0.70Can sinjdoc be retired now? I can't think of a case where you would use it over the OpenJDK implementation of javadoc.
I agree, it should be retired. I have done so in pkgdb.
Thanks for bringing it to attention!
Deepak
-- Mat Booth http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora
-- java-devel mailing list java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
On 16 April 2014 14:35, Deepak Bhole dbhole@redhat.com wrote:
- Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk [2014-04-16 04:36]:
On 15 April 2014 17:55, Fedora Rawhide Report <rawhide@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Broken deps for i386 ---------------------------------------------------------- [sinjdoc] sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >= 0:1.0.70 sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >= 0:1.0.70Can sinjdoc be retired now? I can't think of a case where you would use
it over
the OpenJDK implementation of javadoc.
I agree, it should be retired. I have done so in pkgdb.
Thanks for bringing it to attention!
Deepak
No problem.
It's still showing up in the rawhide report however. If you use "fedpkg retire" command, that should also automatically block the package in rawhide.
* Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk [2014-04-22 05:50]:
On 16 April 2014 14:35, Deepak Bhole dbhole@redhat.com wrote:
* Mat Booth <fedora@matbooth.co.uk> [2014-04-16 04:36]: > > > > On 15 April 2014 17:55, Fedora Rawhide Report <rawhide@fedoraproject.org> > wrote: > > > Broken deps for i386 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > [sinjdoc] > sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >= 0:1.0.70 > sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >= 0:1.0.70 > > > Can sinjdoc be retired now? I can't think of a case where you would use it over > the OpenJDK implementation of javadoc. > I agree, it should be retired. I have done so in pkgdb. Thanks for bringing it to attention! DeepakNo problem.
It's still showing up in the rawhide report however. If you use "fedpkg retire" command, that should also automatically block the package in rawhide.
Sorry for the late reply.. just tried this and got an error: "dbhole is not allowed to change ownership of this package"
Looks like retiring in pkgdb first was a bad idea. Wish the tool had warned :/ Is it still showing up in the report?
Deepak
On 29 April 2014 22:22, Deepak Bhole dbhole@redhat.com wrote:
- Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk [2014-04-22 05:50]:
On 16 April 2014 14:35, Deepak Bhole dbhole@redhat.com wrote:
* Mat Booth <fedora@matbooth.co.uk> [2014-04-16 04:36]: > > > > On 15 April 2014 17:55, Fedora Rawhide Report <rawhide@fedoraproject.org>
> wrote: > > > Broken deps for i386 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > [sinjdoc] > sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >=0:1.0.70
> sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >=0:1.0.70
> > > Can sinjdoc be retired now? I can't think of a case where youwould use
it over > the OpenJDK implementation of javadoc. > I agree, it should be retired. I have done so in pkgdb. Thanks for bringing it to attention! DeepakNo problem.
It's still showing up in the rawhide report however. If you use "fedpkg
retire"
command, that should also automatically block the package in rawhide.
Sorry for the late reply.. just tried this and got an error: "dbhole is not allowed to change ownership of this package"
Looks like retiring in pkgdb first was a bad idea. Wish the tool had warned :/ Is it still showing up in the report?
Deepak
Yes, it still on this morning's report: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-May/198853.html
I have filed a rel-eng ticket to fix it: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5896
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Deepak Bhole -
Mat Booth