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
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to