As long as we don't distribute the unreleased package in one of our own releases, it's fine. We need to apply the same policy as we do for other libraries. If the source distribution doesn't contain those build dependencies, it's ok to keep the unreleased package.
On 20.08.2008 18:31:46 Max Berger wrote: > Dear Fop-Devs, > > further insight on retroweaver: > > I've downloaded and patched retroweaver not to modify Boolean.valueOf, > which is now correctly verified against 1.4. I could add the (patched) > artifact to fops lib/build. I will try and discuss with the retroweaver > maintainer about options to include that into the standard retroweaver > distribution. > > What is the opinion about having patched and unreleased dependencies? > Even if it is just for build, and purely optional? > > Max > > Max Berger schrieb: > > Adrian, > > > > Adrian Cumiskey schrieb: > >> I don't think it is Max... looks like @since 1.4. > > > > you're right - looks like the other valueOf methods (for integer, etc.) > > where introduced in 1.5, and this one was indeed introduced in 1.4. > > > > I've reverted that change. > > > > Apparently retroweaver still modifies calls to Boolean.valueOf, > > according to the doc to be compatible with 1.3. > > > > Unfortunately this requires adding the retroweaver-runtime to the > > verification classpath, which then renders the verification process > > useless, as it is supposed to detect failures like Integer.valueOf(), > > which will now again slip through. > > > > I'll look deeper into retoweaver to see if I can find a suitable solution. > > > > Max > > > > Jeremias Maerki
