openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:32:04 GMT
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

> [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 old outdated version of Java.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 
then go through all the config.log files in the various dirs and search 
for "installed JDK".

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.

This clarification aside, I suggest that we adjourn the discussion to 
when there is real code to see: this will avoid misunderstandings.

>>>> 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 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


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message