From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 16 15:22:45 2021 Received: (at 31719) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Apr 2021 19:22:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41717 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lXU37-0008Tm-KG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:22:45 -0400 Received: from m4s11.vlinux.de ([83.151.27.109]:52488 helo=bjoernhoefling.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lXU32-0008TZ-2s for 31719@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:22:39 -0400 Received: from alma-ubu.fritz.box (pd951fcf8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.81.252.248]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bjoernhoefling.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 810FC3F92D; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:22:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:22:33 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEjDtmZsaW5n?= To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#31719: Chains of dependencies getting longer Message-ID: <20210416212233.05ac87de@alma-ubu.fritz.box> In-Reply-To: <878s5ltj0o.fsf@elephly.net> References: <877end1pda.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <87mtvntckt.fsf@gnu.org> <87o8g2pni4.fsf@gnu.org> <20210301231534.1d4e440a@alma-ubu.fritz.box> <878s5ltj0o.fsf@elephly.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/xoYJwv.bhLiJRKOf0ZeUMpH"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 31719 Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?B?Q291cnTDqHM=?= , bug-guix@gnu.org, 31719@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --Sig_/xoYJwv.bhLiJRKOf0ZeUMpH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ricardo, On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:36:23 +0200 Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Have you been able to identify what=E2=80=99s wrong with the JDK chain?=20 > I=E2=80=99d like us to drop these extra references soon so that they don= =E2=80=99t=20 > appear in the upcoming release. Sorry, I currently don't find the time to look at the problem. Would someone else give it a try? Bj=C3=B6rn --Sig_/xoYJwv.bhLiJRKOf0ZeUMpH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQQiGUP0np8nb5SZM4K/KGy2WT5f/QUCYHnj+QAKCRC/KGy2WT5f /T1rAKConJ8oQrNtdYKrWVVdU/n7NEMKNgCePC4yNna3TXLgWdFKfcMCRfzX2tc= =EFoc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/xoYJwv.bhLiJRKOf0ZeUMpH--