On 08/27/2016 09:32 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Kay Schenk wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>>> Last translations import were done in 4.1.0 and not 4.1.1 (if I recall >>>> correctly); but this is a minor detail. There are no new languages >>>> to be >>>> expected in 4.2.0: we have new languages in Pootle, but I don't think >>>> any of them is ready enough for being released (this may of course >>>> improve with time). ... >> Ok, from what I saw in Pootle, it looked like at least were VERY >> close to >> be added. > > Indeed, work on those 3 languages has progressed more than I expected. > Not 100% but close enough. With a bit a flexibility (which I would > recommend) we could add > https://translate.apache.org/is/ > https://translate.apache.org/si/ > https://translate.apache.org/ug/ > >> [from Java 1.5 to *at least* Java 1.7] >> Possible security issues. I can not imagine at this point in time that >> ANYONE is really using java 1.5 as a default java installation. ... >> We can not in good conscience continue to supply software built with the >> old outdated version of Java. > > I think we have a misunderstanding here. If you believe that we build > with Java 1.5, open > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.1.2 > then go through all the config.log files in the various dirs and search > for "installed JDK".
Ok, I stand corrected. The *nix builds are using java 1.6. The others, Mac and Windows are using Java 1.7, so we only need to correct the *nix builds at this time. > > I want it to be very clear that all possible insecurity is on the user's > side. Again, this is exactly like saying "Windows XP is unsupported and > OpenOffice won't run on it since we need to educate users" and "solving" > it by inserting an explicit check that makes OpenOffice quit at startup > on XP even if it would run normally there. I don't agree 100% with this statement. We seem to be rather concerned with supplying current versions of the libraries we use due to security issues as near as I can tell. I would think something as important as building with a more current version of Java would fall into this category. > > This clarification aside, I suggest that we adjourn the discussion to > when there is real code to see: this will avoid misunderstandings. > OK. >>>>> Add, at least the ant version we're checking for in our >>>>> configuration is >>>>> not the version recommended in our Building Guide. >>>> The this is a bug in configure, needs its own issue and must be >>>> checked. >> Checked by builders? > > No, checked by us. If there is an ant version that passes ./configure > but does not allow a successful build, then configure.ac must obviously > be corrected (again, if you have an issue number this will make things > clearer). I see 1.6.0 (conditional to 1.7.0 depending on the specified > bundle-time extensions) at the moment in configure.ac. > > Regards, > Andrea. -- ---------------------------------------- Kay Schenk Apache OpenOffice "Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org