Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- To: Aleksey Shipilev <shade@redhat.com>, debian-java@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 12:24:03 +0200
- Message-id: <[π] 1a7e6ebb-5aac-2214-32cb-85981e69bb99@apache.org>
- In-reply-to: <[π] 20190522041706.54bt4hbwgv3w6mfc@lark>
- References: <[π] 4471343c-9b11-c218-2cc4-771170fe0e84@redhat.com> <[π] d7bd9794-cfa3-a766-659b-f90fa8b279d8@apache.org> <[π] 4312b8ae-a1e9-7780-d7f5-37a2a7ec768a@redhat.com> <[π] 67ac780f-42e1-26cc-a8ed-f26ba091a9a0@apache.org> <[π] a7b71570-a04c-2c48-c1dd-6a0a7a18ab4c@redhat.com> <[π] 9998d96b-8745-772d-0dbb-6610d5922c05@apache.org> <[π] 9edec39c-abdd-3579-1670-ce261a299e80@redhat.com> <[π] 20190522041706.54bt4hbwgv3w6mfc@lark>
Le 22/05/2019 Γ 06:17, tony mancill a Γ©crit : > For stable backports and buster, I agree that we should upload an > 11.0.3-ga package, particularly given the vulnerabilities still present > in 11.0.3+1: CVE-2019-2698, CVE-2019-2684, and CVE-2019-2602 I've uploaded 11.0.3+1 with a patch bringing it up to 11.0.3+7 to stretch-backports yesterday, it's still pending validation. > It would be nice to do the same for buster, although now that 11.0.4+x > has been introduced to unstable, I believe we'll have to be creative > with the naming, either by introducing an epoch or using the > "11.0.4+1_really11.0.3-ga" trick. I think we should leave 11.0.4 in unstable until the GA release in July and upload 11.0.3+7-4 directly to testing through testing-proposed-updates. I'm volunteering to deal with this upload if Matthias agrees. > In general, I think it would be helpful for our users if we uploaded the > prereleases to experimental but stuck to GA releases for unstable, > testing, and backports. I think it is easy to mistake, for example, an > 11.0.3+x (prerelease) version in Debian with the 11.0.3 GA release being > distributed by other projects. It looks like upstream is going to append a -ea suffix to the version reported by the pre-releases [1]. This is a welcome clarification and we should ensure our builds do it as well. Emmanuel Bourg [1] https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2019-May/009369.html
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- References:
- Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Aleksey Shipilev <shade@redhat.com>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Aleksey Shipilev <shade@redhat.com>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Aleksey Shipilev <shade@redhat.com>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: Aleksey Shipilev <shade@redhat.com>
- Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- From: tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org>
- Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- Prev by Date: Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- Next by Date: Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- Previous by thread: Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- Next by thread: Re: Debian distributions of stable OpenJDK updates
- Index(es):