|
Next: Confused about the Glassfish packages
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Mar 16, 2007
Posts: 242
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:30 pm
Post subject: For those who care about batik
Archived from groups: linux>debian>maint>java (more info?)
|
|
|
Hello,
I've done quite a good deal of work to get the newer upstream version
of batik working, and I've picked up quite a few patches from here and
there too (credits given in the changelog). This resulted in an upload
to main/experimental a few days ago, that still has to go through the
NEW queue (contrib to main...), along with an upload to the same place
for xmlgraphics-common.
The upload is to experimental, because I'm not sure I won't break
reverse dependencies, and also because there are some functionalities
that I did find were not working properly:
* JPEG output for rasterizer does not seem to work even with sun's
pristine Java
* I never got squiggle to work (and that was also true for the
previous, very old version).
* I have no idea of how rdepends should work and how they interact
with batik so I could not check that.
As I probably lack the skills to deal with that, I would like that
some of you interested in batik (if only because you're one of the
rdepends) check that the newer version works as you expected. Batik is
in the pkg-java SVN repository (check out the QA page).
If everything is working fine, we should also check if rdepends of
batik could not be moved to main, that would be quite great !
Thanks in advance to potential helpers  !
Vincent
--
Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer
http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/
The moon was high now, in a sky as black as a cup of coffee that
wasn't very black at all.
-- Terry Pratchet, Men at arms
Vincent, not listening to anything for now
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Mar 18, 2007
Posts: 85
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:10 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hello,
> As a side note, fop upstream recommend [1] using batik version which come with
> theirs tarballs : batik 1.6 with FOP 0.94 and batik 1.7 with FOP 0.95
About fop, I just committed into the SVN the stuff for the version 0.95
with the accord of Arnaud Vandyck.
I just need someone to upload it for me.
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 19, 2007
Posts: 10
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:40 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> As I probably lack the skills to deal with that, I would like that
> some of you interested in batik (if only because you're one of the
> rdepends) check that the newer version works as you expected. Batik is
> in the pkg-java SVN repository (check out the QA page).
As I was the one who updated batik in Ubuntu I want to ask few
comments about the differences between Ubuntu packaging and Debian
packaging. I haven't yet tried to build the package.
1. Are you sure following change is correct -
* Removing 02_fix_jar_target, no longer applicable
The reason I ask is because I refreshed that patch in Ubuntu. If you
remove that patch you end up with same class files in
batik-all-1.7.jar as well as batik-libs-1.7.jar files i.e. files that
should go only in batik-ext-1.7.jar will be included in
batik-libs-1.7.jar.
2. You have not added 'xmlgraphics-commons-1.2' and 'xml-apis-ext' to
DEB_JARS. This is likely to cause build failure on build server. In
case I get enough time to verify it in pbuilder I will let you know.
3. Also Ubuntu version contains following symlinks which you may want
to add to Debian version as well.
batik-ext.jar -> batik-ext-1.7.jar
batik-libs.jar -> batik-libs-1.7.jar
batik-1.7.jar -> batik-all-1.7.jar
batik-all.jar -> batik-all-1.7.jar
batik.jar -> batik-all-1.7.jar
I will let you know if find any more important differences.
Onkar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 07, 2004
Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:30 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi,
I thought that Batik 1.7 is not backwards compatible with Batik 1.6 (I
remember vaguely to have issues with this). If I'm right, wouldn't it
make sense to have a batik1.7 package name and keep batik (1.6)?
Thanks, Eric
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've done quite a good deal of work to get the newer upstream version
> of batik working, and I've picked up quite a few patches from here and
> there too (credits given in the changelog). This resulted in an upload
> to main/experimental a few days ago, that still has to go through the
> NEW queue (contrib to main...), along with an upload to the same place
> for xmlgraphics-common.
>
> The upload is to experimental, because I'm not sure I won't break
> reverse dependencies, and also because there are some functionalities
> that I did find were not working properly:
>
> * JPEG output for rasterizer does not seem to work even with sun's
> pristine Java
> * I never got squiggle to work (and that was also true for the
> previous, very old version).
> * I have no idea of how rdepends should work and how they interact
> with batik so I could not check that.
>
> As I probably lack the skills to deal with that, I would like that
> some of you interested in batik (if only because you're one of the
> rdepends) check that the newer version works as you expected. Batik is
> in the pkg-java SVN repository (check out the QA page).
>
> If everything is working fine, we should also check if rdepends of
> batik could not be moved to main, that would be quite great !
>
> Thanks in advance to potential helpers !
>
> Vincent
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 27, 2007
Posts: 62
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:40 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Eric Lavarde <deb DeleteThis @zorglub.s.bawue.de> wrote:
> I thought that Batik 1.7 is not backwards compatible with Batik 1.6 (I
> remember vaguely to have issues with this). If I'm right, wouldn't it make
> sense to have a batik1.7 package name and keep batik (1.6)?
IMO it wouldn't make much sense unless upstream is working on both
branches and releasing updates for them. There are only 3 reverse-deps
and one reverse-build-dep so it shouldn't be a very big transition
anyway.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 16, 2007
Posts: 242
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Onkar Shinde wrote:
> As I was the one who updated batik in Ubuntu I want to ask few
> comments about the differences between Ubuntu packaging and Debian
> packaging. I haven't yet tried to build the package.
>
> 1. Are you sure following change is correct -
> * Removing 02_fix_jar_target, no longer applicable
>
> The reason I ask is because I refreshed that patch in Ubuntu. If you
> remove that patch you end up with same class files in
> batik-all-1.7.jar as well as batik-libs-1.7.jar files i.e. files that
> should go only in batik-ext-1.7.jar will be included in
> batik-libs-1.7.jar.
Thanks, I will need to have a deeper look at that - I'll pull the
updated patch from Ubuntu, then.
> 2. You have not added 'xmlgraphics-commons-1.2' and 'xml-apis-ext' to
> DEB_JARS. This is likely to cause build failure on build server. In
> case I get enough time to verify it in pbuilder I will let you know.
Every single package I upload is built with pbuilder, so it builds
fine. I'm not sure things are not missing, though, I will check to see
if there are any differences if I add the jars for the build.
> 3. Also Ubuntu version contains following symlinks which you may want
> to add to Debian version as well.
> batik-ext.jar -> batik-ext-1.7.jar
> batik-libs.jar -> batik-libs-1.7.jar
> batik-1.7.jar -> batik-all-1.7.jar
> batik-all.jar -> batik-all-1.7.jar
> batik.jar -> batik-all-1.7.jar
Most are already here (they are mandated by Debian Java Policy). Is
the batik.jar and batik-1.7.jar links necessary ?
> I will let you know if find any more important differences.
Thanks !
Vincent
--
Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer
http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/
His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He
preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called
himself Sam.
-- Roger Zelazny, Lord of Light
Vincent, not listening to anything for now
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 18, 2007
Posts: 85
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:10 am
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Le vendredi 19 septembre 2008 à 20:57 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> > As a side note, fop upstream recommend [1] using batik version which come with
> > theirs tarballs : batik 1.6 with FOP 0.94 and batik 1.7 with FOP 0.95
> About fop, I just committed into the SVN the stuff for the version 0.95
> with the accord of Arnaud Vandyck.
> I just need someone to upload it for me.
Please, can someone upload for me the updated version of FOP ?
I am just DM for now and therefor needs someone to do it for me.
It is available here:
For the compiled version: http://sylvestre.ledru.info/debian/fop/
or
svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-java/trunk/fop
Thanks!
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 10, 2008
Posts: 7
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 16, 2007
Posts: 242
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:10 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hello,
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le vendredi 19 septembre 2008 à 20:57 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit :
>> Hello,
>>
>>> As a side note, fop upstream recommend [1] using batik version which come with
>>> theirs tarballs : batik 1.6 with FOP 0.94 and batik 1.7 with FOP 0.95
>> About fop, I just committed into the SVN the stuff for the version 0.95
>> with the accord of Arnaud Vandyck.
>> I just need someone to upload it for me.
> Please, can someone upload for me the updated version of FOP ?
> I am just DM for now and therefor needs someone to do it for me.
>
> It is available here:
> For the compiled version: http://sylvestre.ledru.info/debian/fop/
> or
> svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-java/trunk/fop
I'm just wondering about some points: I seem to recall that the point
of getting an updated version was that older versions seemed to work
less well with newer batik. Then, shouldn't fop tighten dependencies on
batik 1.7 ? If then, we should upload to experimental, and it would
probably be worth to see if we can move it to main. In particular, does
it work fine with openjdk -- or with other free java implementations (I
doubt that, as batik does not work really well with non-Sun stuff)?
Could you check all that, please ?
In addition, the debian/copyright file needs updating: most of the
files are Apache 2.0 (and not 1.1), but some files are public domain.
You might also want to make it a little more clear how the .dfsg archive
was made... (debian/README.debian only says about 0.94.dfsg, not the
0.95 version !).
BTW, it probably would be worth trying to adapt fop.sh and
fop-ttfreader.sh to the java-wrappers stuff, in order to offer a more
consistent interface with batik and other programs too - but I can do
that, since I wrote java-wrappers, after all ...
Cheers,
Vincent
--
Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer
http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/
His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He
preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called
himself Sam.
-- Roger Zelazny, Lord of Light
Vincent, listening to Stairway To Heaven (Led Zeppelin)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 18, 2007
Posts: 85
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> > It is available here:
> > For the compiled version: http://sylvestre.ledru.info/debian/fop/
> > or
> > svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-java/trunk/fop
>
> I'm just wondering about some points: I seem to recall that the point
> of getting an updated version was that older versions seemed to work
> less well with newer batik. Then, shouldn't fop tighten dependencies on
> batik 1.7 ? If then, we should upload to experimental, and it would
> probably be worth to see if we can move it to main. In particular, does
> it work fine with openjdk -- or with other free java implementations (I
> doubt that, as batik does not work really well with non-Sun stuff)?
>
> Could you check all that, please ?
fop v0.95 needs Batik 1.7. I agree that it should go to experimental
first.
It seems that it needs this version for WMF stuff (at least).
I also changed gcj to openjdk6.
I tested to build a 2400 pages documentation (Scilab's docbook to PDF)
using also MathML & Latex. It works for me with OpenJDK & this version
of FOP.
> In addition, the debian/copyright file needs updating: most of the
> files are Apache 2.0 (and not 1.1), but some files are public domain.
> You might also want to make it a little more clear how the .dfsg archive
> was made... (debian/README.debian only says about 0.94.dfsg, not the
> 0.95 version !).
Where did you see files in public domain ?
I udpated the README.Debian and took the opportunity to add a script to
repack the archive.
See revision 7120.
> BTW, it probably would be worth trying to adapt fop.sh and
> fop-ttfreader.sh to the java-wrappers stuff, in order to offer a more
> consistent interface with batik and other programs too - but I can do
> that, since I wrote java-wrappers, after all ...
You are welcome 
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 16, 2007
Posts: 242
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:40 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>> Could you check all that, please ?
> fop v0.95 needs Batik 1.7. I agree that it should go to experimental
> first.
> It seems that it needs this version for WMF stuff (at least).
> I also changed gcj to openjdk6.
Perfect. I added a runtime dependency on batik 1.7 too, just to be sure...
>> In addition, the debian/copyright file needs updating: most of the
>> files are Apache 2.0 (and not 1.1), but some files are public domain.
>> You might also want to make it a little more clear how the .dfsg archive
>> was made... (debian/README.debian only says about 0.94.dfsg, not the
>> 0.95 version !).
> Where did you see files in public domain ?
Using licensecheck, I picked up a few -- I'll have a look into it later.
> I udpated the README.Debian and took the opportunity to add a script to
> repack the archive.
> See revision 7120.
Great !
>> BTW, it probably would be worth trying to adapt fop.sh and
>> fop-ttfreader.sh to the java-wrappers stuff, in order to offer a more
>> consistent interface with batik and other programs too - but I can do
>> that, since I wrote java-wrappers, after all ...
> You are welcome
I switched fop.sh to java-wrappers. You can see that it lead to a
significant decrease of the size ... Could you check it works fine ?
If that is the case, I'll switch the other wrapper too, and we'll upload
to main/experimental (there are no reasons to keep it out of main, now !).
Cheers,
Vincent, glad that things are going on, even if we definitely are too
late for Lenny...
--
Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer
http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it
was that quite often, it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
-- Terry Pratchet, Guards, guards !
Vincent, listening to Send Me An Angel (Scorpions)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 18, 2007
Posts: 85
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:00 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> >> In addition, the debian/copyright file needs updating: most of the
> >> files are Apache 2.0 (and not 1.1), but some files are public domain.
> >> You might also want to make it a little more clear how the .dfsg archive
> >> was made... (debian/README.debian only says about 0.94.dfsg, not the
> >> 0.95 version !).
> > Where did you see files in public domain ?
>
> Using licensecheck, I picked up a few -- I'll have a look into it later.
Are you sure ?
The command:
$ licensecheck -r .|grep -i domain|wc -l
is returning 0.
> >> BTW, it probably would be worth trying to adapt fop.sh and
> >> fop-ttfreader.sh to the java-wrappers stuff, in order to offer a more
> >> consistent interface with batik and other programs too - but I can do
> >> that, since I wrote java-wrappers, after all ...
> > You are welcome
>
> I switched fop.sh to java-wrappers. You can see that it lead to a
> significant decrease of the size ... Could you check it works fine ?
> If that is the case, I'll switch the other wrapper too, and we'll upload
> to main/experimental (there are no reasons to keep it out of main, now !).
Many thanks. It is indeed giving very nice startup script. I will think
about using it in my packages.
While we are talking about "Java rendering" packages, I also updated
xmlgraphics-commons to the version 1.3.1. Could you upload it to
experimental too ? (I need it for jeuclid [1])
FOP is working without any problem with this version (it is the one I am
using to test it).
Sylvestre
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=490749
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 16, 2007
Posts: 242
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:20 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>>>> In addition, the debian/copyright file needs updating: most of the
>>>> files are Apache 2.0 (and not 1.1), but some files are public domain.
>>>> You might also want to make it a little more clear how the .dfsg archive
>>>> was made... (debian/README.debian only says about 0.94.dfsg, not the
>>>> 0.95 version !).
>>> Where did you see files in public domain ?
>> Using licensecheck, I picked up a few -- I'll have a look into it later.
> Are you sure ?
> The command:
> $ licensecheck -r .|grep -i domain|wc -l
> is returning 0.
Yep. I seemed to have seen more, but now I only find this one:
../test/resources/fonts/DejaVuLGCSerif.LICENSE
>> I switched fop.sh to java-wrappers. You can see that it lead to a
>> significant decrease of the size ... Could you check it works fine ?
>> If that is the case, I'll switch the other wrapper too, and we'll upload
>> to main/experimental (there are no reasons to keep it out of main, now !).
> Many thanks. It is indeed giving very nice startup script. I will think
> about using it in my packages.
... Please go ahead ! I think it is nice to be able to provide a
consistent user interface for java wrapper scripts, rather than the
current mess...
> While we are talking about "Java rendering" packages, I also updated
> xmlgraphics-commons to the version 1.3.1. Could you upload it to
> experimental too ? (I need it for jeuclid [1])
The 1.2 version is waiting in NEW. No need to upload a newer version
for now. I'll do that when it is accepted.
> FOP is working without any problem with this version (it is the one I am
> using to test it).
Great !
I'll find some time to switch the other script and then I'll upload it.
Cheers,
Vincent
--
Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer
http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/
It was funny how people were people everywhere you went, even if the
people concerned weren't the people the people who made up the phrase
``people are people everywhere'' had traditionally thought of as people.
-- Terry Pratchet, The Fifth Elephant
Vincent, not listening to anything for now
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:40 pm
Post subject: Re: For those who care about batik [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hello,
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>> I switched fop.sh to java-wrappers. You can see that it lead to a
>> significant decrease of the size ... Could you check it works fine ?
>> If that is the case, I'll switch the other wrapper too, and we'll upload
>> to main/experimental (there are no reasons to keep it out of main, now !).
> Many thanks. It is indeed giving very nice startup script. I will think
> about using it in my packages.
>
> While we are talking about "Java rendering" packages, I also updated
> xmlgraphics-commons to the version 1.3.1. Could you upload it to
> experimental too ? (I need it for jeuclid [1])
>
> FOP is working without any problem with this version (it is the one I am
> using to test it).
I updated a few things on xmlgraphics-common (your last changes left
the package not-buildable, at least once the binary-only jars were removed).
Could you please check the new version (in SVN) with the newer fop
before I upload it ?
Cheers,
Vincent
--
His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He
preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called
himself Sam.
-- Roger Zelazny, Lord of Light
Vincent, listening to Headshots (Vega, Suzanne)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 18, 2007
Posts: 85
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:40 pm
Post subject: Batik, fop, xmlgraphics ... [was: For those who care about batik] [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Le lundi 13 octobre 2008 à 22:19 +0200, Vincent Fourmond a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >> I switched fop.sh to java-wrappers. You can see that it lead to a
> >> significant decrease of the size ... Could you check it works fine ?
> >> If that is the case, I'll switch the other wrapper too, and we'll upload
> >> to main/experimental (there are no reasons to keep it out of main, now !).
> > Many thanks. It is indeed giving very nice startup script. I will think
> > about using it in my packages.
> >
> > While we are talking about "Java rendering" packages, I also updated
> > xmlgraphics-commons to the version 1.3.1. Could you upload it to
> > experimental too ? (I need it for jeuclid [1])
> >
> > FOP is working without any problem with this version (it is the one I am
> > using to test it).
>
> I updated a few things on xmlgraphics-common (your last changes left
> the package not-buildable, at least once the binary-only jars were removed).
OK, I did a small change. debian/rules was looking for build/xmlgraphics-commons-1.3.1.dfsg.jar.
> Could you please check the new version (in SVN) with the newer fop
> before I upload it ?
With batik 1.7-1, fop 0.95.dfsg-1 & xmlgraphics-common 1.3.1.dfsg-1 my
usual test is working (build a big documentation).
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | A test, really sorry - Andrew. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Debian-isp-request aerophane degrees - Hey mom&dad, Just wanted to write you and let you know how that de_gree program I tried out went... Well 2 weeks later, I graduated, & finished my masters in less then 2 weeks with No Study Required and 1_0_0_% Verifiable! Yeah, I know you...
bhaeve! - Hows it been going? A Genuine College Degree in 2 weeks C.a.l.l now!-> 1-2,0,6,-338-5780 B/A, B/S/C, M/A, M/S/C, M/B/A, P/H/D, Within 2 weeks! No Study Required! ,.1_0_0_% Veri.fiable! The oppor.rtunity exists due to a legal....
$B%*!p(B $BJs(B - $BBg9%I>!*8=6b<+F02s<}5!@_7WK!$N@_CVK!$r3J0B$N(B5000$B1_$G65$($^$9!#(B $B$"$J$?$N%Q%=%3%s$,<+F0$G$*6b$r2T$$$G$/$l$^$9!*(B $B;d$O3X@8$J$N$G$9$,!"$3$l$r<B9T$9$k$3$H$G7n$K(B8$BK|A08e2T$$$G$^$9!*(B $BGH$K>h$l$P7n$K?t==K...
[mkoch@konqueror.de: ftp.debian.org: orig tarballs get los.. - Hello all, I filed the attached bug report because the orig tarballs of tomcat5 and libxalan2-java are missing in the main section of the archive. They are present in the contrib section bug 'apt-cache source ...' fails because it looks in main only. I... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
Hot
Bloated Email? DetachPipe for Outlook
Mac
Linux
Games
PDA
Mobile
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Linux Forums
RSS