On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>> >>>> anything else that needs to be done before 0.2 can be released? >>>> >>>> - robert >>> >>> I think the only "open" issue is "Why don't we include javacc, javamail >>> and >>> activation jars in the source tree/distribution so to be able to build it >>> offline without any manual download?" by Norman in the recent "Two >>> builds" >>> thread. I second him. >> >> i'd be glad to fix this in a subsequent release but ATM AIUI we can't >> distribute: we'd need to wait until the third party license stuff is >> agreed (or until the next JavaCC release). if the community is >> unwilling to support new releases until a consensus is reached then >> i'll back off pushing this sequence of releases forward. > > Oh sorry, I remember now! it is because of this sentence in their 4.0 > license. > ------------------ > You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended > for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear > facility. > ------------------ > > Sorry, I forgot about it. > > I just saw there is a javacc-4.1d1 release (4 Jun 2008) that is licensed > under the standard BSD license.
it's a beta > I gave it a try and our tests pass. I had to change one thing because jjtree > 4.1 creates jj files in a different folder. IIRC we need to specify the output folder in the jj files > Should we move to javacc-4.1d1 and fix the "offline build" issue or do you > still prefer to delay this to the next release? i think it safer to release then upgrade but may be better in community terms to fix the offline build issue opinions? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
