Bug 21361 - new version of java-1.8.0-openjfx
Summary: new version of java-1.8.0-openjfx
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Mageia
Classification: Unclassified
Component: RPM Packages (show other bugs)
Version: 6
Hardware: All Linux
Priority: Normal normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: QA Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: has_procedure MGA6-32-OK advisory
Keywords: validated_update
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2017-07-26 15:55 CEST by Nicolas Salguero
Modified: 2017-07-30 11:46 CEST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Source RPM: java-1.8.0-openjfx
CVE:
Status comment:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description Nicolas Salguero 2017-07-26 15:55:22 CEST 
Hi,

There is a new version of openjfx which come in sync with openjdk.

Best regards,

Nico.
Comment 1 Nicolas Salguero 2017-07-26 16:01:03 CEST 
Suggested advisory:
========================

The updated package is synched with java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.141-1.b16.1.mga6.

========================

Package in core/updates_testing:
========================
java-1.8.0-openjfx-1.8.0.141-1.b14.1.mga6

from SRPM:
java-1.8.0-openjfx-1.8.0.141-1.b14.1.mga6.src.rpm

The test procedure is in bug 20220, comment 3.

Status: NEW => ASSIGNED
Assignee: bugsquad => qa-bugs
Source RPM: (none) => java-1.8.0-openjfx
Whiteboard: (none) => has_procedure

Comment 2 Herman Viaene 2017-07-29 10:25:48 CEST 
MGA6-32 on Asus A6000VM MATE
No installation issues.
Followed test as above: OK and validating.

Whiteboard: has_procedure => has_procedure MGA6-32-OK
Keywords: (none) => validated_update
CC: (none) => herman.viaene, sysadmin-bugs

Dave Hodgins 2017-07-30 05:13:04 CEST

Whiteboard: has_procedure MGA6-32-OK => has_procedure MGA6-32-OK advisory
CC: (none) => davidwhodgins

Comment 3 Mageia Robot 2017-07-30 10:18:07 CEST 
An update for this issue has been pushed to the Mageia Updates repository.

http://advisories.mageia.org/MGAA-2017-0044.html

Resolution: (none) => FIXED
Status: ASSIGNED => RESOLVED

Comment 4 James Kerr 2017-07-30 11:46:55 CEST 
Should this update not have waited for openjdk bug#21324 to be validated before being pushed?

CC: (none) => jim
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.