You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com> on 2011/11/24 13:40:40 UTC
[Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Hi all,
I made a patch to update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3.
Current Rhino has problem about its license on its additional
component swingExtSrc
but 1.7R3 does not need it anymore.
I'm sorry, my patch does not have a part to change downloading Rhino.
Would anybody like to review and commit?
Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
The patch to remove swingExtSrc from the source tree has been created by Andre:
IP clearance: Remove swingExtSrc
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118612
Regards,
Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Andre
Thanks for your commit. I updated the state to FIXED.
Regards,
Tsutomu
2011/12/23 Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>:
> Hi Tsutomu,
>
> I have just commited all changes (your patches and some changes to the build
> system).
>
> Can you set issue 118623 to fixed? I am not allowed to do that.
>
> Regards,
> Andre
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
Hi Tsutomu,
I have just commited all changes (your patches and some changes to the
build system).
Can you set issue 118623 to fixed? I am not allowed to do that.
Regards,
Andre
On 24.11.2011 13:40, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I made a patch to update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3.
> Current Rhino has problem about its license on its additional
> component swingExtSrc
> but 1.7R3 does not need it anymore.
> I'm sorry, my patch does not have a part to change downloading Rhino.
>
> Would anybody like to review and commit?
>
> Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
>
> The patch to remove swingExtSrc from the source tree has been created by Andre:
> IP clearance: Remove swingExtSrc
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118612
>
> Regards,
> Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/26/11 10:13 AM, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/11/26 Pedro Giffuni<pf...@apache.org>:
>> Hi;
>>
>> I am not against the update but I found this
>> Java V8 bridge under AL2 which would further
>> save licensing issues (and should be faster
>> than Rhino):
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/jav8/
>>
>> enjoy,
>>
>> Pedro.
> It seems good in my first impression.
> It needs Java 6 for JSR 223. I do not know how many people uses Java 5
> with the office.
i think when we can use this V8 bridge and the work is done (who will do
that?) we can decide if we want to change the baseline for Java.
Juergen
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
2011/11/26 Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>:
> Hi;
>
> I am not against the update but I found this
> Java V8 bridge under AL2 which would further
> save licensing issues (and should be faster
> than Rhino):
>
> http://code.google.com/p/jav8/
>
> enjoy,
>
> Pedro.
It seems good in my first impression.
It needs Java 6 for JSR 223. I do not know how many people uses Java 5
with the office.
Regards,
Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
On 29.11.2011 17:17, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29.11.2011 13:08, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I need advice regarding license headers.
>>>>
>>>> The upgrade of rhino to version 1.7 will integrate a file
>>>> (OfficeScriptInfo.java) that previously existed only in a patch that was
>>>> applied to version 1.5 source code before building. This file still has
>>>> the
>>>> old license. The patch file itself is part of the SGA.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the entire OfficeScriptInfo.java was included in a patch, and that
>>> patch was included in the SGA? If that is true, then I believe we may
>>> update the license header in the source file.
>>>
>>> Think of it this way: The SGA is what puts these files under ALv2.
>>> Updating the license header is how we document this fact, so it is
>>> clear to downstream consumers exactly what files are under ALv2.
>>
>>
>> Good, I was hoping for this answer.
>>
>> And I have another question. Can/should we download the source or even the
>> binaries (keep in mind that rhino is a Java library, so the binary is a JAR
>> file) directly from the mozilla servers or should we update the rhino tar
>> ball in ext_sources?
>>
>
> I'm working on another Apache podling (ODF Toolkit) where we use
> Maven. So no third party components are stored in SVN. JAR's are
> downloaded at build time. That is the Maven model. So that is
> certainly permitted.
>
> IMHO, I'd look at the stability of the host. If we have a dependency
> on a long-established,
check
> well-known,
check
> widely-used open source component
check
> that is not tremendously large, then we could safely download it it
> build time. (Assuming the license is compatible, of course).
The size should not be a problem in general as you have to download it
anyway, either from our SVN server or from its home server.
>
> But if it is a component that we worry might disappear tomorrow, or
> the host is not very attentive to preserving stability of URL
> references, or they commonly delete old binaries when updating their
> component, then having a copy in SVN could be a good idea.
>
> The idea should be (I believe) to support some sort of release policy
> where we have something like "Long term stable" releases as well as
> more frequent feature releases. For an LTS release we would want to
> be able to spin a new maintenance release 18 months from now. What do
> we need to do to be sure that everything we depend on is still there?
In this case, with the source code hosted at mozilla.org I see no
problem. But in general we probably have to keep a copy in SVN, just to
be sure.
If there are no objections then I will give the download a try.
Adapting the fetch_tarballs.sh script should not be too hard. If that
does not work out, we can still put a copy of the rhino library into
ext_sources.
-Andre
>
> That's my personal opinion.
>
>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Andre
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> My question is how to handle this file? Change the license on my own?
>>>> Ask
>>>> Andrew Rist to do it?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andre
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25.11.2011 15:44, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/11/25 Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Tsutomu,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25.11.2011 13:08, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is
>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>> I have already reopned the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, very good :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
>>>>>>> options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can do that if you like. There are a number of libraries that have
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> a special treatment, not just rhino. I will start to work on that, as
>>>>>> soon
>>>>>> the category-x code is removed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your work. I think I can do it in short time, my
>>>>> knowledge about the building process is not enough for the task.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Andre
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>
>
> On 29.11.2011 13:08, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I need advice regarding license headers.
>>>
>>> The upgrade of rhino to version 1.7 will integrate a file
>>> (OfficeScriptInfo.java) that previously existed only in a patch that was
>>> applied to version 1.5 source code before building. This file still has
>>> the
>>> old license. The patch file itself is part of the SGA.
>>>
>>
>> So the entire OfficeScriptInfo.java was included in a patch, and that
>> patch was included in the SGA? If that is true, then I believe we may
>> update the license header in the source file.
>>
>> Think of it this way: The SGA is what puts these files under ALv2.
>> Updating the license header is how we document this fact, so it is
>> clear to downstream consumers exactly what files are under ALv2.
>
>
> Good, I was hoping for this answer.
>
> And I have another question. Can/should we download the source or even the
> binaries (keep in mind that rhino is a Java library, so the binary is a JAR
> file) directly from the mozilla servers or should we update the rhino tar
> ball in ext_sources?
>
I'm working on another Apache podling (ODF Toolkit) where we use
Maven. So no third party components are stored in SVN. JAR's are
downloaded at build time. That is the Maven model. So that is
certainly permitted.
IMHO, I'd look at the stability of the host. If we have a dependency
on a long-established, well-known, widely-used open source component
that is not tremendously large, then we could safely download it it
build time. (Assuming the license is compatible, of course).
But if it is a component that we worry might disappear tomorrow, or
the host is not very attentive to preserving stability of URL
references, or they commonly delete old binaries when updating their
component, then having a copy in SVN could be a good idea.
The idea should be (I believe) to support some sort of release policy
where we have something like "Long term stable" releases as well as
more frequent feature releases. For an LTS release we would want to
be able to spin a new maintenance release 18 months from now. What do
we need to do to be sure that everything we depend on is still there?
That's my personal opinion.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Andre
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> My question is how to handle this file? Change the license on my own?
>>> Ask
>>> Andrew Rist to do it?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andre
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25.11.2011 15:44, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>
>>>> 2011/11/25 Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tsutomu,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25.11.2011 13:08, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is
>>>>>> clear
>>>>>> now.
>>>>>> I have already reopned the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, very good :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
>>>>>> options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can do that if you like. There are a number of libraries that have
>>>>> to
>>>>> get
>>>>> a special treatment, not just rhino. I will start to work on that, as
>>>>> soon
>>>>> the category-x code is removed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your work. I think I can do it in short time, my
>>>> knowledge about the building process is not enough for the task.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andre
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
On 29.11.2011 13:08, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I need advice regarding license headers.
>>
>> The upgrade of rhino to version 1.7 will integrate a file
>> (OfficeScriptInfo.java) that previously existed only in a patch that was
>> applied to version 1.5 source code before building. This file still has the
>> old license. The patch file itself is part of the SGA.
>>
>
> So the entire OfficeScriptInfo.java was included in a patch, and that
> patch was included in the SGA? If that is true, then I believe we may
> update the license header in the source file.
>
> Think of it this way: The SGA is what puts these files under ALv2.
> Updating the license header is how we document this fact, so it is
> clear to downstream consumers exactly what files are under ALv2.
Good, I was hoping for this answer.
And I have another question. Can/should we download the source or even
the binaries (keep in mind that rhino is a Java library, so the binary
is a JAR file) directly from the mozilla servers or should we update the
rhino tar ball in ext_sources?
Regards,
Andre
>
> -Rob
>
>> My question is how to handle this file? Change the license on my own? Ask
>> Andrew Rist to do it?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andre
>>
>>
>> On 25.11.2011 15:44, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andre,
>>>
>>> 2011/11/25 Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tsutomu,
>>>>
>>>> On 25.11.2011 13:08, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is
>>>>> clear
>>>>> now.
>>>>> I have already reopned the issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, very good :-)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
>>>>> options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can do that if you like. There are a number of libraries that have to
>>>> get
>>>> a special treatment, not just rhino. I will start to work on that, as
>>>> soon
>>>> the category-x code is removed.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your work. I think I can do it in short time, my
>>> knowledge about the building process is not enough for the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andre
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I need advice regarding license headers.
>
> The upgrade of rhino to version 1.7 will integrate a file
> (OfficeScriptInfo.java) that previously existed only in a patch that was
> applied to version 1.5 source code before building. This file still has the
> old license. The patch file itself is part of the SGA.
>
So the entire OfficeScriptInfo.java was included in a patch, and that
patch was included in the SGA? If that is true, then I believe we may
update the license header in the source file.
Think of it this way: The SGA is what puts these files under ALv2.
Updating the license header is how we document this fact, so it is
clear to downstream consumers exactly what files are under ALv2.
-Rob
> My question is how to handle this file? Change the license on my own? Ask
> Andrew Rist to do it?
>
> Regards,
> Andre
>
>
> On 25.11.2011 15:44, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> 2011/11/25 Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de>:
>>>
>>> Hi Tsutomu,
>>>
>>> On 25.11.2011 13:08, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is
>>>> clear
>>>> now.
>>>> I have already reopned the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, very good :-)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
>>>> options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can do that if you like. There are a number of libraries that have to
>>> get
>>> a special treatment, not just rhino. I will start to work on that, as
>>> soon
>>> the category-x code is removed.
>>
>> Thank you for your work. I think I can do it in short time, my
>> knowledge about the building process is not enough for the task.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andre
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
Hi all,
I need advice regarding license headers.
The upgrade of rhino to version 1.7 will integrate a file
(OfficeScriptInfo.java) that previously existed only in a patch that was
applied to version 1.5 source code before building. This file still has
the old license. The patch file itself is part of the SGA.
My question is how to handle this file? Change the license on my own?
Ask Andrew Rist to do it?
Regards,
Andre
On 25.11.2011 15:44, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> 2011/11/25 Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de>:
>> Hi Tsutomu,
>>
>> On 25.11.2011 13:08, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andre,
>>>
>>> Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is clear
>>> now.
>>> I have already reopned the issue.
>>
>> Ah, very good :-)
>>
>>>
>>> Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
>>> options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
>>
>> I can do that if you like. There are a number of libraries that have to get
>> a special treatment, not just rhino. I will start to work on that, as soon
>> the category-x code is removed.
> Thank you for your work. I think I can do it in short time, my
> knowledge about the building process is not enough for the task.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andre
>
> Regards,
> Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andre,
2011/11/25 Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>:
> Hi Tsutomu,
>
> On 25.11.2011 13:08, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is clear
>> now.
>> I have already reopned the issue.
>
> Ah, very good :-)
>
>>
>> Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
>> options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
>
> I can do that if you like. There are a number of libraries that have to get
> a special treatment, not just rhino. I will start to work on that, as soon
> the category-x code is removed.
Thank you for your work. I think I can do it in short time, my
knowledge about the building process is not enough for the task.
>
> Regards,
> Andre
Regards,
Tsutomu
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
Hi Tsutomu,
On 25.11.2011 13:08, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is clear now.
> I have already reopned the issue.
Ah, very good :-)
>
> Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
> options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
I can do that if you like. There are a number of libraries that have to
get a special treatment, not just rhino. I will start to work on that,
as soon the category-x code is removed.
Regards,
Andre
>
> Regards,
> Tsutomu
>
> 2011/11/25 Andre Fischer<af...@a-w-f.de>:
>> Hi Tsutomu,
>>
>>
>> On 24.11.2011 18:21, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>>
>>> I updated the state of the issue 118612 to INVALID. Please forget my
>>> request to commit the patch.
>>
>> But why?
>> It would be great to upgrade rhino instead of just removing it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andre
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tsutom
>>>
>>> 2011/11/24 Tsutomu Uchino<ha...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I made a patch to update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3.
>>>> Current Rhino has problem about its license on its additional
>>>> component swingExtSrc
>>>> but 1.7R3 does not need it anymore.
>>>> I'm sorry, my patch does not have a part to change downloading Rhino.
>>>>
>>>> Would anybody like to review and commit?
>>>>
>>>> Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
>>>>
>>>> The patch to remove swingExtSrc from the source tree has been created by
>>>> Andre:
>>>> IP clearance: Remove swingExtSrc
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118612
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tsutomu
>>>>
>>
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi;
I am not against the update but I found this
Java V8 bridge under AL2 which would further
save licensing issues (and should be faster
than Rhino):
http://code.google.com/p/jav8/
enjoy,
Pedro.
--- On Fri, 11/25/11, Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Friday, November 25, 2011, 7:08 AM
> Hi Andre,
>
> Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro.
> But it is clear now.
> I have already reopned the issue.
>
> Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add
> configure
> options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
>
> Regards,
> Tsutomu
>
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andre,
Yesterday I got a suggestion about MPL license from Pedro. But it is clear now.
I have already reopned the issue.
Additionally, I noticed about license issue we need to add configure
options to switch Rhino enabled or disabled.
Regards,
Tsutomu
2011/11/25 Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>:
> Hi Tsutomu,
>
>
> On 24.11.2011 18:21, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
>>
>> I updated the state of the issue 118612 to INVALID. Please forget my
>> request to commit the patch.
>
> But why?
> It would be great to upgrade rhino instead of just removing it.
>
> Regards,
> Andre
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tsutom
>>
>> 2011/11/24 Tsutomu Uchino<ha...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I made a patch to update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3.
>>> Current Rhino has problem about its license on its additional
>>> component swingExtSrc
>>> but 1.7R3 does not need it anymore.
>>> I'm sorry, my patch does not have a part to change downloading Rhino.
>>>
>>> Would anybody like to review and commit?
>>>
>>> Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
>>>
>>> The patch to remove swingExtSrc from the source tree has been created by
>>> Andre:
>>> IP clearance: Remove swingExtSrc
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118612
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tsutomu
>>>
>
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
Hi Tsutomu,
On 24.11.2011 18:21, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:
> I updated the state of the issue 118612 to INVALID. Please forget my
> request to commit the patch.
But why?
It would be great to upgrade rhino instead of just removing it.
Regards,
Andre
>
> Thanks,
> Tsutom
>
> 2011/11/24 Tsutomu Uchino<ha...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I made a patch to update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3.
>> Current Rhino has problem about its license on its additional
>> component swingExtSrc
>> but 1.7R3 does not need it anymore.
>> I'm sorry, my patch does not have a part to change downloading Rhino.
>>
>> Would anybody like to review and commit?
>>
>> Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
>>
>> The patch to remove swingExtSrc from the source tree has been created by Andre:
>> IP clearance: Remove swingExtSrc
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118612
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tsutomu
>>
Re: [Code] issue 118623: Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
Posted by Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com>.
I updated the state of the issue 118612 to INVALID. Please forget my
request to commit the patch.
Thanks,
Tsutom
2011/11/24 Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> I made a patch to update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3.
> Current Rhino has problem about its license on its additional
> component swingExtSrc
> but 1.7R3 does not need it anymore.
> I'm sorry, my patch does not have a part to change downloading Rhino.
>
> Would anybody like to review and commit?
>
> Update Rhino from 1.5R5 to 1.7R3
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118623
>
> The patch to remove swingExtSrc from the source tree has been created by Andre:
> IP clearance: Remove swingExtSrc
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118612
>
> Regards,
> Tsutomu
>