On 8/5/13 10:11 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: > Hi, > > On 03.08.2013 10:18, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> On 01/08/2013 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: >>> Version 2.7.1-1 now takes line endings in the patch file and in the file >>> to be patch serious. Thus, the application of a patch fails when the >>> line endings are different. >> >> I haven't investigated this deeply at the time, but the hsqldb module >> has a mix of line endings (that led to a broken patch too) and uses >> CONVERTFILES in makefile.mk to harmonize them. >> > > Thx for the feedback. > > In the meanwhile my changes regarding 'patch' version 2.7.1-1 broke the > Linux build - see our Linux 64bit and 32bit build bots. > I am working on a corresponding patch. > >> >>> There are issues 121690 [3] and 121754 [4] regarding building with Java >>> 7 (JDK 1.7) and HSQLDB. I think these issues are the duplicates of each >>> other [please, can one of the people involved in these issues - e.g. >>> Fred, Ariel or Andrea confirm this? Thx in advance]. As far as I >>> understood these issues are solved. Please correct me, if I am wrong. >> >> 121754 is fixed. 121690 is more generic; I confirm that after fixing >> 121754 I had no problems in building with Java 7, so it might be that >> HSQLDB was the only problem. But I only tried with some "standard" build >> options. Namely, I didn't try with --with-junit or similar, and Kay >> reported issues with that. >> >> >>> On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does not >>> recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu - Tools - >>> Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our Windows >>> users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems due to >>> its security risks. Does somebody contradicts? >> >> As far as I know, this would be a significant limitation. We can now >> build with Java 5, 6 or 7 and the build can work with Java 5, 6 or 7 >> (regardless of the version used for building). Restricting this would >> require discussion, especially on less common platforms. >> > > I agree that it would be a restriction, but due to the security risks of > Oracle's JRE 6 I do not think that such a restriction hurts. In contrast > it would 'help' our Windows users to update their Java environment. > > Thus, let us start a new thread to discuss this topic.
we should think how relevant it is and if we have more work to support it. As Oliver pointed out, the latest security problems of Java result in probably many updated systems. I don't see that Java 5 or 6 is important in the future and we should focus on the future. Juergen > > > Best regards, Oliver. > >> Regards, >> Andrea. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
