To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
User kendy changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
User pjanik changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
User pjanik changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 9 08:35:59 -0800
2005 ---
It looks allright for me. sunjre.cxx is in fact only intended for the JRE from
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
User pjanik changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 8 09:05:27 -0800
2005 ---
JL-Pavel: Your are right, the otherjre.cxx should be patched, not the
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
User pjanik changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 8 13:16:13 -0800
2005 ---
jl: vendorbase should be patched (MAD64 macro), but not
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57424
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Nov 6 23:58:16 -0800
2005 ---
hmm, looks like we have to patch otherjre instead:
diff -ur
