From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.skidata.com (mail1.skidata.com [91.230.2.99]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA5871633 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:20:09 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtQMAAG9MFasEApK/2dsb2JhbABEGoQKbwa6bYYJI4V4AoIKAQEBAQEBgQtBAQEBBgYEg2IBAQR4EQsNCwkWDwkDAgECAUUGDQYCAogxCDvEbwEBAQcCIYJShCWEfoROSReEFwWWPYUciWFIhngXijSIUIMngUFxAYIIboE/QYEGAQEB X-IPAS-Result: AtQMAAG9MFasEApK/2dsb2JhbABEGoQKbwa6bYYJI4V4AoIKAQEBAQEBgQtBAQEBBgYEg2IBAQR4EQsNCwkWDwkDAgECAUUGDQYCAogxCDvEbwEBAQcCIYJShCWEfoROSReEFwWWPYUciWFIhngXijSIUIMngUFxAYIIboE/QYEGAQEB Message-ID: <5630BD21.3030706@skidata.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:18:41 +0100 From: Richard Leitner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <1446034039-1169-1-git-send-email-richard.leitner@skidata.com> In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [172.16.60.30] Subject: Re: [meta-java][PATCH v2] openjdk-7: update to IcedTea 2.6.2 OpenJDK 7u91b01 X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:20:12 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/28/2015 01:15 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Richard Leitner > wrote: >> IcedTea 2.6.2 provides OpenJDK 7u91, which adds the October 2015 security >> updates. For more details see: >> http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2015/10/23/security-icedtea-2-6-2-for-openjdk-7-released/ >> >> Furthermore the patches directory for OpenJDK-7 was renamed to avoid the version number. >> This makes it easier for upgrades and to see diff's between patches. >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner > > Acked-by: Otavio Salvador > > While on that, would you mind to remove the preferred version from > README? As we just offer one now, it seems not required. > That's fine for me. Should I add it to this patch or the previous one? Or should I create a separate patch for it?