dev-java/jython: Remove vulnerable versions. Fixes security bug 552452. #813
Conversation
Package-Manager: portage-2.2.26 Signed-off-by: Patrice Clement <monsieurp@gentoo.org>
Package-Manager: portage-2.2.26 Signed-off-by: Patrice Clement <monsieurp@gentoo.org>
Package-Manager: portage-2.2.26 Signed-off-by: Patrice Clement <monsieurp@gentoo.org>
monsieurp
added
bugfix
assigned
|
😞 The QA check for this pull request has found the following issues: New issues: |
Package-Manager: portage-2.2.26 RepoMan-Options: --force Signed-off-by: Patrice Clement <monsieurp@gentoo.org>
|
😞 The QA check for this pull request has found the following issues: New issues: |
Package-Manager: portage-2.2.26 RepoMan-Options: --force Signed-off-by: Patrice Clement <monsieurp@gentoo.org>
monsieurp
force-pushed
the
dev-java/jython
branch
from
c6ef91e
to
6f65d65
Compare
|
Looks good. I'm going to merge it. |
Gentoo-Bug: 552452 Pull-Request: #813
|
does jython-2.7 depend on icedtea-bin:7? |
|
I don't think so. @chewi can you confirm? |
|
Huh? It needs at least JDK 7 and that could be satisfied by icedtea-bin:7 as well as any of the other JDKs we currently support. Where did that question even come from? |
|
I had no jdk:7, but I had jdk8:7. Once I installed ant or freemind, it pulled jython:2.7 that pulled jdk:7 and guess what was installed. icedtea-bin:7, just like mentioned in jdk RDEPEND first item. Anyone mind if I swap it with icedtea:7? #1221 |
|
What is jdk8:7? Assuming you meant virtual/jdk:1.8, I'm not sure why it pulled in 7 as very few things require that explicitly but preferring -bin is intentional as I explained in your pull request. |
Just to have the CI checks run and make sure I'm not breaking the tree. ;)