Hello, On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:39:33AM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Stepan Kasal <skasal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Before pushing to F11 Alpha, we have to judge the wins and the risk. > > - the win is removing the above confusing inconsistency > > - But what are the risks that this change introduces a new bug to F11 > > Alpha? I need your help here as I do not understand Java. > > If I understand what you did correctly, the sources for gcj have not > changed at all, right? [...] right. It's almost sure that my change has no impact on the package itself, it only overcomes a bug in the build environment. > [...] then I would say that the risk is very low and the > benefits are desirable. Well, you can "never enter the same river" (multiple tanslations, but I hope you can deduce what quote I mean). The build from Dec 2008 can differ from the current one because the build environment has changed. The package is just a bunch of symlinks, but anyway. Moreover, the rawhide so far worked with the current packages, so ww might assume there was some testing that proved that other java packages work the current mix; when we change a component, that "testing" is invalidated. > Yes, if for no other reason than that it will stop confusing > maintainers who are trying to build Java packages. OK, I'll file a ticket. Stepan -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
