From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: IcedTea 1 / OpenJDK 6 discontinued
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:04:00 +0100
Message-ID: <87tw8n5x4v.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <20170124191827.GA6311@jasmine> <87y3xzygzz.fsf@openmailbox.org>
	<20170125033628.GA7256@jasmine>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40165)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1cWJV4-0000aw-Dt
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:04:19 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1cWJV1-0006xg-8c
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:04:18 -0500
Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com ([74.201.84.163]:21137)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1cWJV0-0006xF-W2
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:04:15 -0500
In-reply-to: <20170125033628.GA7256@jasmine>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org


Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:07:28PM -0500, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>> I agree with Marius's option 5. I don't see an immediate reason to
>> remove it, and we can build icedtea-7 using gcj.
>
> I actually hadn't noticed that icedtea-7 builds with icedtea-6. I
> thought it simply inherited from the package definition.

It does not.  Icedtea-7 builds with GCJ.

I see no problems with removing “icedtea-6” (after removing the
inheritance issues).  I would not like to wait for security advisories
to be published, because security vulnerabilities in Java are really
just a matter of time.  They may not even be reported in time because
hardly anyone uses that version any more.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net