Dear FopDevs, I've added the patched version and submitted a feature request for retroweaver:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2063970&group_id=104240&atid=637383 Since the next release date is still a little bit away I hope this can be fixed properly by then. Max Jeremias Maerki schrieb: > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
