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 Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu> on 2010/07/09 16:54:41 UTC
[VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0
The release files for fop 1.0 are now ready for review and the release
vote.
The release files are built from:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/tags/fop-1_0
(created in revision 962495).
The release files are found here: http://people.apache.org/~spepping/fop-1_0:
cba0264296b49cb3c08f403b19981376 fop-1.0-bin.tar.gz
12312c2f5c17d45000517e32e68e116b fop-1.0-bin.zip
bb921758e2eb4327b7ac01c5f5fec455 fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
0ac83532ad1ebfd878ca2a9e43a0a7b9 fop-1.0-src.zip
c4d60c28b5a51676ae90473f80808807 fop-1.0-bundle.jar
As partially mentioned earlier, I used the following workaround:
jdk6: ant distclean, docs
jdk14 without junit: ant dist-src, dist-bin (which runs the docs target again), maven-artifacts
jdk6: junit
This uses the trick that forrest is run each time, but does not clean
out its target directory.
With jdk14 all junit tests fail. I removed junit from the classpath
for jdk14, and ran junit after the build with jdk6.
forrest also gives problems with jdk6:
0.95/images/update.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/update.jpg
at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
0.95/images/fix.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/fix.jpg
at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
0.95/images/add.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/add.jpg
at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
1.0/images/update.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/update.jpg
at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
1.0/images/fix.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/fix.jpg
at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
1.0/images/add.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/add.jpg
at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
These images are in /images, and the problem does not seem to matter.
compliance.pdf: internal-destination or external-destination must be
specified in basic-link. As a consequence no compliance.pdf was built.
For your perusal I uploaded the build log: build-2010-07-09T16:23:58+02:00.log.
Please, review and cast your votes before Wed 14 July 16:00h UTC.
+1 from me.
Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: [VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu>.
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:54:21AM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
> Right, lib/build did not exist in the previous release. Apparently it
> has not been added to the build rule at its creation. So I will have
> to revise the rule. Should all files in lib/build be added to the
> release, except checkstyle? I think so. As far as I can see, this only
> affects the source release files, and I will not have to rebuild the
> bin release files and the maven bundle.
Not right. I will have to delete the tag, modify the branch, recreate
the tag and rebuild the complete release.
Please, report more problems before I do that.
Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: [VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu>.
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 05:36:48PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I downloaded the tarball
> from:http://people.apache.org/~spepping/fop-1_0/fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
>
> $ md5sum fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
> bb921758e2eb4327b7ac01c5f5fec455 fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
>
> It seems the ant rule should be adapted since lib/build has been
> removed from the tarball.
>
> log:
>
> Buildfile: /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/build.xml
>
> BUILD FAILED
> /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/build.xml:1117:
> /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/lib/build does not
> exist.
Right, lib/build did not exist in the previous release. Apparently it
has not been added to the build rule at its creation. So I will have
to revise the rule. Should all files in lib/build be added to the
release, except checkstyle? I think so. As far as I can see, this only
affects the source release files, and I will not have to rebuild the
bin release files and the maven bundle.
Thanks for your attention and report.
Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: [VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
So is this VOTE cancelled?
On Jul 10, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu> wrote:
> I am not in favor of including all jar files in lib/build in the
> source distribution. Do we use retroweaver? I seem to recall that that
> was a plan on which we did not execute. Do we need to include tools
> for PMD and Findbugs reports? Or for doing XMLUnit tests? They are not
> essential build tools, they are tools for advanced building with
> diagnostics.
>
> I found that it i can compile when I include qdox only.
>
> Simon
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 05:36:48PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> I downloaded the tarball
>> from:http://people.apache.org/~spepping/fop-1_0/fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
>>
>> $ md5sum fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
>> bb921758e2eb4327b7ac01c5f5fec455 fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
>>
>> It seems the ant rule should be adapted since lib/build has been
>> removed from the tarball.
>>
>> log:
>>
>> Buildfile: /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/build.xml
>>
>> BUILD FAILED
>> /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/build.xml:1117:
>> /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/lib/build does not
>> exist.
>>
>> Total time: 0 seconds
>
> --
> Simon Pepping
> home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: Include all files in lib/build? [was: [VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0]
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Simon Pepping wrote:
Hi Simon,
> After some thought I decided that it will be quite acceptable to
> include all files in lib/build in the source distribution. After all,
> the source distribution is for people who undertake to build FOP
> themselves, so a larger download and more tools should not be a
> problem for them.
I concur with this thinking. It is perfectly reasonable for the source
distribution to be larger than the binary distribution. It would be very
annoying if in order to build FOP I had to download several 3rd party
JAR files before I could do that.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Simon
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 03:37:57PM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
>> I am not in favor of including all jar files in lib/build in the
>> source distribution. Do we use retroweaver? I seem to recall that that
>> was a plan on which we did not execute. Do we need to include tools
>> for PMD and Findbugs reports? Or for doing XMLUnit tests? They are not
>> essential build tools, they are tools for advanced building with
>> diagnostics.
>>
>> I found that it i can compile when I include qdox only.
>>
>
Re: Include all files in lib/build? [was: [VOTE] Release of FOP
1.0]
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu>.
After some thought I decided that it will be quite acceptable to
include all files in lib/build in the source distribution. After all,
the source distribution is for people who undertake to build FOP
themselves, so a larger download and more tools should not be a
problem for them.
Simon
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 03:37:57PM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
> I am not in favor of including all jar files in lib/build in the
> source distribution. Do we use retroweaver? I seem to recall that that
> was a plan on which we did not execute. Do we need to include tools
> for PMD and Findbugs reports? Or for doing XMLUnit tests? They are not
> essential build tools, they are tools for advanced building with
> diagnostics.
>
> I found that it i can compile when I include qdox only.
>
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: [VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu>.
I am not in favor of including all jar files in lib/build in the
source distribution. Do we use retroweaver? I seem to recall that that
was a plan on which we did not execute. Do we need to include tools
for PMD and Findbugs reports? Or for doing XMLUnit tests? They are not
essential build tools, they are tools for advanced building with
diagnostics.
I found that it i can compile when I include qdox only.
Simon
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 05:36:48PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I downloaded the tarball
> from:http://people.apache.org/~spepping/fop-1_0/fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
>
> $ md5sum fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
> bb921758e2eb4327b7ac01c5f5fec455 fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
>
> It seems the ant rule should be adapted since lib/build has been
> removed from the tarball.
>
> log:
>
> Buildfile: /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/build.xml
>
> BUILD FAILED
> /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/build.xml:1117:
> /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/lib/build does not
> exist.
>
> Total time: 0 seconds
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: [VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0
Posted by Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi Simon,
I downloaded the tarball
from:http://people.apache.org/~spepping/fop-1_0/fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
$ md5sum fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
bb921758e2eb4327b7ac01c5f5fec455 fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
It seems the ant rule should be adapted since lib/build has been
removed from the tarball.
log:
Buildfile: /home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/build.xml
BUILD FAILED
/home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/build.xml:1117:
/home/mathieu/debian/pkg-java/trunk/fop/fop-1.0/lib/build does not
exist.
Total time: 0 seconds
Thanks for suggestion,
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu> wrote:
> I removed the files accidentally. They are being uploaded again.
>
> Simon
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:54:41PM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
>> The release files for fop 1.0 are now ready for review and the release
>> vote.
>>
>> The release files are built from:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/tags/fop-1_0
>> (created in revision 962495).
>>
>> The release files are found here: http://people.apache.org/~spepping/fop-1_0:
>>
>> cba0264296b49cb3c08f403b19981376 fop-1.0-bin.tar.gz
>> 12312c2f5c17d45000517e32e68e116b fop-1.0-bin.zip
>> bb921758e2eb4327b7ac01c5f5fec455 fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
>> 0ac83532ad1ebfd878ca2a9e43a0a7b9 fop-1.0-src.zip
>> c4d60c28b5a51676ae90473f80808807 fop-1.0-bundle.jar
>>
>> As partially mentioned earlier, I used the following workaround:
>>
>> jdk6: ant distclean, docs
>> jdk14 without junit: ant dist-src, dist-bin (which runs the docs target again), maven-artifacts
>> jdk6: junit
>>
>> This uses the trick that forrest is run each time, but does not clean
>> out its target directory.
>>
>> With jdk14 all junit tests fail. I removed junit from the classpath
>> for jdk14, and ran junit after the build with jdk6.
>>
>> forrest also gives problems with jdk6:
>>
>> 0.95/images/update.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/update.jpg
>> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
>> 0.95/images/fix.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/fix.jpg
>> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
>> 0.95/images/add.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/add.jpg
>> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
>> 1.0/images/update.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/update.jpg
>> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
>> 1.0/images/fix.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/fix.jpg
>> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
>> 1.0/images/add.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/add.jpg
>> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
>>
>> These images are in /images, and the problem does not seem to matter.
>>
>> compliance.pdf: internal-destination or external-destination must be
>> specified in basic-link. As a consequence no compliance.pdf was built.
>>
>> For your perusal I uploaded the build log: build-2010-07-09T16:23:58+02:00.log.
>>
>> Please, review and cast your votes before Wed 14 July 16:00h UTC.
>>
>> +1 from me.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> --
>> Simon Pepping
>> home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
>
> --
> Simon Pepping
> home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
>
--
Mathieu
Re: [VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu>.
I removed the files accidentally. They are being uploaded again.
Simon
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:54:41PM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
> The release files for fop 1.0 are now ready for review and the release
> vote.
>
> The release files are built from:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/tags/fop-1_0
> (created in revision 962495).
>
> The release files are found here: http://people.apache.org/~spepping/fop-1_0:
>
> cba0264296b49cb3c08f403b19981376 fop-1.0-bin.tar.gz
> 12312c2f5c17d45000517e32e68e116b fop-1.0-bin.zip
> bb921758e2eb4327b7ac01c5f5fec455 fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
> 0ac83532ad1ebfd878ca2a9e43a0a7b9 fop-1.0-src.zip
> c4d60c28b5a51676ae90473f80808807 fop-1.0-bundle.jar
>
> As partially mentioned earlier, I used the following workaround:
>
> jdk6: ant distclean, docs
> jdk14 without junit: ant dist-src, dist-bin (which runs the docs target again), maven-artifacts
> jdk6: junit
>
> This uses the trick that forrest is run each time, but does not clean
> out its target directory.
>
> With jdk14 all junit tests fail. I removed junit from the classpath
> for jdk14, and ran junit after the build with jdk6.
>
> forrest also gives problems with jdk6:
>
> 0.95/images/update.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/update.jpg
> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
> 0.95/images/fix.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/fix.jpg
> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
> 0.95/images/add.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 0.95/images/add.jpg
> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
> 1.0/images/update.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/update.jpg
> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
> 1.0/images/fix.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/fix.jpg
> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
> 1.0/images/add.jpg: No pipeline matched request: 1.0/images/add.jpg
> at <map:mount> - file:/fsc/source/apache-forrest-0.8/main/webapp/./sitemap.xmap:600:76
>
> These images are in /images, and the problem does not seem to matter.
>
> compliance.pdf: internal-destination or external-destination must be
> specified in basic-link. As a consequence no compliance.pdf was built.
>
> For your perusal I uploaded the build log: build-2010-07-09T16:23:58+02:00.log.
>
> Please, review and cast your votes before Wed 14 July 16:00h UTC.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Simon Pepping
> home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: [VOTE] Release of FOP 1.0 cancelled
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu>.
Because a serious problem has been reported with the source
distribution files, I herewith cancel the vote. I will rebuild the
release after fixing the reported problems, and reopen a vote.
Simon
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:54:41PM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
> The release files for fop 1.0 are now ready for review and the release
> vote.
>
> The release files are built from:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/tags/fop-1_0
> (created in revision 962495).
>
> The release files are found here: http://people.apache.org/~spepping/fop-1_0:
>
> cba0264296b49cb3c08f403b19981376 fop-1.0-bin.tar.gz
> 12312c2f5c17d45000517e32e68e116b fop-1.0-bin.zip
> bb921758e2eb4327b7ac01c5f5fec455 fop-1.0-src.tar.gz
> 0ac83532ad1ebfd878ca2a9e43a0a7b9 fop-1.0-src.zip
> c4d60c28b5a51676ae90473f80808807 fop-1.0-bundle.jar
>
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu