On 29 April 2014 22:22, Deepak Bhole <dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2014-04-22 05:50]:
Sorry for the late reply.. just tried this and got an error:> On 16 April 2014 14:35, Deepak Bhole <dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2014-04-16 04:36]:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 15 April 2014 17:55, Fedora Rawhide Report <rawhide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 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!
>
> 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.
"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 mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
