You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by "Christopher R. Maden" <cr...@exemplary.net> on 1999/12/01 10:33:26 UTC
Problems with 0.12.0
System profile at end of message.
First off, the Web server is definitely identifying the .jar files as
text/plain. Lynx will (D)ownload them just fine, but selecting the link
displays them as text.
The files are full of DOS CRLFs, which cause problems for Linux make.
Neither 'jar xvf' nor 'unzip -a' convert the CRLFs in the Makefiles.
'unzip -a' is usually good about this, so I'm a little confused.
The bottom-level Makefiles try to recurse through a null list of
subdirectories and end up with illegal shell syntax:
SUBDIRS=
$(TARGETS:%=%subs): %subs :
for dir in $(SUBDIRS) ; do \
(cd $$dir && pwd && $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) $*) || exit 1 ; \
done
This resolves to 'for dir in ; do' which is not legal Bourne shell syntax.
I get an error in the first bottom directory (org/apache/fop/apps).
I fixed this for all by changing
all: $(CLASSES) subdirs
to
all: $(CLASSES)
in the bottom-level directory Makefiles. Assuming these Makefiles are
auto-generated, this change should be incorporable. A similar fix is
needed for other targets.
Finally, I can't find the javax.* classes to put in my CLASSPATH. Where
should I expect to find them? I have classes.zip in CLASSPATH (plus
xt.jar, sax,jar, and xp.jar), but javac can't find javax.*.
The precompiled jar seems to work OK.
[System profile]
$ make -version
GNU Make version 3.77, by Richard Stallman and Roland McGrath.
$ uname -a
Linux galaga 2.2.12 #6 SMP Wed Oct 27 14:36:37 PDT 1999 i686 unknown
$ java -version
java version "1.1.7"
(javac lives in the same directory as java, but I can't coax a version out
of it)
-Chris
--
Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect
Exemplary Technologies
One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re: Problems with 0.12.0
Posted by Kelly Campbell <ca...@pcisys.net>.
At 3:23 AM -0500 12/3/99, James Tauber wrote:
>> in the bottom-level directory Makefiles. Assuming these Makefiles are
>> auto-generated, this change should be incorporable. A similar fix is
>> needed for other targets.
>
>The Makefiles aren't auto-generated, AFAIK. Kelly?
>
Nope, not auto-generated... unless you count copy & paste :-)
-Kelly
Kelly A. Campbell Commerce Core Engineer
<ca...@pcisys.net> <ca...@acm.org> ChannelPoint, Inc.
<ke...@channelpoint.com> Colorado Springs, Co.
Re: Problems with 0.12.0
Posted by James Tauber <jt...@jtauber.com>.
> The files are full of DOS CRLFs, which cause problems for Linux make.
Which files? I thought I got rid of them all. (they were annoying me in
Emacs)
[...]
> This resolves to 'for dir in ; do' which is not legal Bourne shell
syntax.
> I get an error in the first bottom directory (org/apache/fop/apps).
Hmm. I haven't had any problems (GNU Make 3.75 and bash 2.02.1(2) both from
Cygwin b20 and running on WinNT).
> I fixed this for all by changing
>
> all: $(CLASSES) subdirs
>
> to
>
> all: $(CLASSES)
>
> in the bottom-level directory Makefiles. Assuming these Makefiles are
> auto-generated, this change should be incorporable. A similar fix is
> needed for other targets.
The Makefiles aren't auto-generated, AFAIK. Kelly?
James
Re: Problems with 0.12.0
Posted by Kelly Campbell <ca...@pcisys.net>.
At 1:33 AM -0800 12/1/99, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
>The bottom-level Makefiles try to recurse through a null list of
>subdirectories and end up with illegal shell syntax:
>
>SUBDIRS=
>
>$(TARGETS:%=%subs): %subs :
> for dir in $(SUBDIRS) ; do \
> (cd $$dir && pwd && $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) $*) || exit 1 ; \
> done
>
>This resolves to 'for dir in ; do' which is not legal Bourne shell syntax.
>I get an error in the first bottom directory (org/apache/fop/apps).
>
>I fixed this for all by changing
>
>all: $(CLASSES) subdirs
>
>to
>
>all: $(CLASSES)
>
>in the bottom-level directory Makefiles. Assuming these Makefiles are
>auto-generated, this change should be incorporable. A similar fix is
>needed for other targets.
Whoops... I forgot about this problem. The empty subdirs works with certain
versions of Bash, but not all. The version in cygwin and Redhat 6.x are
versions that work.
-Kelly
Kelly A. Campbell Commerce Core Engineer
<ca...@pcisys.net> <ca...@acm.org> ChannelPoint, Inc.
<ke...@channelpoint.com> Colorado Springs, Co.
Re: Problems with 0.12.0
Posted by James Tauber <jt...@jtauber.com>.
> It makes sense to have separate targets. AWT viewer needs JDK 1.2 for
> several reason including font handling, zoom, Java2D.
>
> In the long term (4 months ;-) ) it's reasonable for me to go completely
> to 1.2 e.g. for using collection classes. Currently 1.2 doesn't work
> reliable on many platforms.
Right. I asked xml-dev a little while back and the general consensus was,
stick to 1.1 unless you have to. We have to for the AWT viewer but not the
rest so we should let people build whichever they want.
By the way, I still can't get over how cool the AWT viewer is!
James
Re: Problems with 0.12.0
Posted by Stephan Albers <St...@af-software.de>.
James Tauber schrieb:
> Before the AWT Viewer, FOP used only JDK1.1
> With the AWT Viewer, FOP requires JDK1.2 or at least Swing
>
> This is a pain for people only interested in batch mode. Should we have a
> separate make target or something?
It makes sense to have separate targets. AWT viewer needs JDK 1.2 for
several reason including font handling, zoom, Java2D.
In the long term (4 months ;-) ) it's reasonable for me to go completely
to 1.2 e.g. for using collection classes. Currently 1.2 doesn't work
reliable on many platforms.
Stephan
Re: Problems with 0.12.0
Posted by James Tauber <jt...@jtauber.com>.
> FOP uses the swing classes which live in javax.swing. From JDK 1.2 they
are part of the
> core classes, for jdk1.1 you can download them from the sun website:
> http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/#download-swing
I'm wondering about this.
Before the AWT Viewer, FOP used only JDK1.1
With the AWT Viewer, FOP requires JDK1.2 or at least Swing
This is a pain for people only interested in batch mode. Should we have a
separate make target or something?
James
Re: Problems with 0.12.0
Posted by Fotis Jannidis <Fo...@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>.
> Finally, I can't find the javax.* classes to put in my CLASSPATH. Where
> should I expect to find them? I have classes.zip in CLASSPATH (plus
> xt.jar, sax,jar, and xp.jar), but javac can't find javax.*.
FOP uses the swing classes which live in javax.swing. From JDK 1.2 they are part of the
core classes, for jdk1.1 you can download them from the sun website:
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/#download-swing
Fotis