You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pdfbox.apache.org by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> on 2010/02/11 15:13:22 UTC
[VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Hi,
I've prepared candidates for the FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
releases. They're available for review at:
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/fontbox/
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/pdfbox/
The release candidates are zip archives of the sources in:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/fontbox/tags/1.0.0/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/tags/1.0.0/
The SHA1 checksums of the candidate archives are:
fd97306798dd9994e79ab52fba699ea79acd02b4 fontbox-1.0.0-src.zip
d3bf10510e972b2720bcc2e6fd2e6d75cb0eebfb pdfbox-1.0.0-src.zip
A staged Maven repository containing the binary release artifacts is
available at:
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/repo/
I haven't included .NET binaries since I don't have the required
tooling to do that. Daniel, if you can build the binaries and make
them available with your PGP signatures, then I can include them in
the release.
Note that you will need to build and install the FontBox 1.0.0 release
first before building PDFBox 1.0.0 to satisfy the dependency between
the projects.
Please vote on releasing these packages. The vote is open for the next
72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 PDFBox PMC
votes are cast.
[ ] +1 Release these package as FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Here's my +1
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Hi
Jukka Zitting schrieb:
> Please vote on releasing these packages. The vote is open for the next
> 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 PDFBox PMC
> votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release these package as FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
+1
I've tested the maven and the ant (pdfbox only, fontbox doesn't have any) build
on ubuntu 9.10.
Some minor notes:
- both READMEs have still an incubator link in the header (I've already fixed
that in the trunk)
- there are some lost {$docs.dir} entries in the test and the init target within
the build.xml (I've already fixed that in the trunk)
- the staged Maven repository contains some dispensable files, such as
fontbox-1.0.0-javadoc.jar.asc.md5
- the staged Maven repository contains a sources and a src zip. I think only one
of them should be released. IMHO the src zip is the right one, isn't it.
BR
Andreas Lehmkühler
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Daniel Wilson
<wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> re: the .Net binaries, I have them built ... and strong named / signed in
> the .Net fashion. Mixing PGP signing w/ signing for inclusion in the GAC is
> not, as far as I can tell, supported. Application of the 2nd signature
> invalidates the first. For .Net assemblies strong naming is, in my opinion,
> more suitable than a PGP signature.
OK, thanks! The reason why a PGP signature is needed is so that the
release artifacts are bound to the Apache web of trust. The signature
doesn't need to be embedded in the DLLs, in fact a single PGP
signature for the entire zip archive you created should be good
enough. See http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html for
background. I can also sign the package with my key, but I'll need
some verification beyond email for that.
> The binaries are at
> http://www.blacklocustsoftware.com/Downloads/PDFBox_100_RC_Net_Binaries.zip...
> and I can place them somewhere on Apache if you tell me where. Or
> more likely, you'll just want to grab them & incorporate them into the release.
I've got a copy now but there's no way for me to tell whether the
package has been tampered with somewhere along the way. If you don't
have a GPG setup handy, you can upload a SHA1 hash of the package to
people.apache.org or commit it to somewhere in the svn. Both ways
should be secure enough for us.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:47 AM, nisen <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just review the site generate by maven。Need change lists:
>
> 1.download.html: the download link shou 1.0.0
> 2.userguide/building_pdfbox.html now use ant, should use maven 。It
> should be same as README.txt.
We currently generate the live web site from the PDFBox trunk, so we
should only change these once the 1.0.0 release is officially out.
This does cause the inconvenience of having to have outdated
information in the release package. Perhaps we should move the PDFBox
site sources to a separate svn subtree.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by nisen <ni...@gmail.com>.
+0
I download and maven build pdfbox, OK。It's good。
I just review the site generate by maven。Need change lists:
1.download.html: the download link shou 1.0.0
2.userguide/building_pdfbox.html now use ant, should use maven 。It
should be same as README.txt.
2010/2/12 Daniel Wilson <wi...@gmail.com>:
> +1 on the release.
>
> re: the .Net binaries, I have them built ... and strong named / signed in
> the .Net fashion. Mixing PGP signing w/ signing for inclusion in the GAC is
> not, as far as I can tell, supported. Application of the 2nd signature
> invalidates the first. For .Net assemblies strong naming is, in my opinion,
> more suitable than a PGP signature.
>
> The binaries are at
> http://www.blacklocustsoftware.com/Downloads/PDFBox_100_RC_Net_Binaries.zip...
> and I can place them somewhere on Apache if you tell me where. Or
> more
> likely, you'll just want to grab them & incorporate them into the release.
>
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL <
> m.martinez@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I mostly tested text extraction.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:13 AM
>> To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
>> Subject: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've prepared candidates for the FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
>> releases. They're available for review at:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/fontbox/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/fontbox/>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/pdfbox/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/pdfbox/>
>>
>> The release candidates are zip archives of the sources in:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/fontbox/tags/1.0.0/
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/tags/1.0.0/
>>
>> The SHA1 checksums of the candidate archives are:
>>
>> fd97306798dd9994e79ab52fba699ea79acd02b4 fontbox-1.0.0-src.zip
>> d3bf10510e972b2720bcc2e6fd2e6d75cb0eebfb pdfbox-1.0.0-src.zip
>>
>> A staged Maven repository containing the binary release artifacts is
>> available at:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/repo/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/repo/>
>>
>> I haven't included .NET binaries since I don't have the required
>> tooling to do that. Daniel, if you can build the binaries and make
>> them available with your PGP signatures, then I can include them in
>> the release.
>>
>> Note that you will need to build and install the FontBox 1.0.0 release
>> first before building PDFBox 1.0.0 to satisfy the dependency between
>> the projects.
>>
>> Please vote on releasing these packages. The vote is open for the next
>> 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 PDFBox PMC
>> votes are cast.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release these package as FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>> Jukka Zitting
>>
>
--
nisen 倪森 from China
Blog: http://nisen.javaeye.com
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Daniel Wilson <wi...@gmail.com>.
+1 on the release.
re: the .Net binaries, I have them built ... and strong named / signed in
the .Net fashion. Mixing PGP signing w/ signing for inclusion in the GAC is
not, as far as I can tell, supported. Application of the 2nd signature
invalidates the first. For .Net assemblies strong naming is, in my opinion,
more suitable than a PGP signature.
The binaries are at
http://www.blacklocustsoftware.com/Downloads/PDFBox_100_RC_Net_Binaries.zip...
and I can place them somewhere on Apache if you tell me where. Or
more
likely, you'll just want to grab them & incorporate them into the release.
Daniel
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL <
m.martinez@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> +1
>
> I mostly tested text extraction.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:13 AM
> To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
>
> Hi,
>
> I've prepared candidates for the FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
> releases. They're available for review at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/fontbox/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/fontbox/>
> http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/pdfbox/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/pdfbox/>
>
> The release candidates are zip archives of the sources in:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/fontbox/tags/1.0.0/
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/tags/1.0.0/
>
> The SHA1 checksums of the candidate archives are:
>
> fd97306798dd9994e79ab52fba699ea79acd02b4 fontbox-1.0.0-src.zip
> d3bf10510e972b2720bcc2e6fd2e6d75cb0eebfb pdfbox-1.0.0-src.zip
>
> A staged Maven repository containing the binary release artifacts is
> available at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/repo/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/repo/>
>
> I haven't included .NET binaries since I don't have the required
> tooling to do that. Daniel, if you can build the binaries and make
> them available with your PGP signatures, then I can include them in
> the release.
>
> Note that you will need to build and install the FontBox 1.0.0 release
> first before building PDFBox 1.0.0 to satisfy the dependency between
> the projects.
>
> Please vote on releasing these packages. The vote is open for the next
> 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 PDFBox PMC
> votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release these package as FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Here's my +1
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
RE: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by "Martinez, Mel - 1004 - MITLL" <m....@ll.mit.edu>.
+1
I mostly tested text extraction.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:13 AM
To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Hi,
I've prepared candidates for the FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
releases. They're available for review at:
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/fontbox/
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/pdfbox/
The release candidates are zip archives of the sources in:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/fontbox/tags/1.0.0/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/tags/1.0.0/
The SHA1 checksums of the candidate archives are:
fd97306798dd9994e79ab52fba699ea79acd02b4 fontbox-1.0.0-src.zip
d3bf10510e972b2720bcc2e6fd2e6d75cb0eebfb pdfbox-1.0.0-src.zip
A staged Maven repository containing the binary release artifacts is
available at:
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/repo/
I haven't included .NET binaries since I don't have the required
tooling to do that. Daniel, if you can build the binaries and make
them available with your PGP signatures, then I can include them in
the release.
Note that you will need to build and install the FontBox 1.0.0 release
first before building PDFBox 1.0.0 to satisfy the dependency between
the projects.
Please vote on releasing these packages. The vote is open for the next
72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 PDFBox PMC
votes are cast.
[ ] +1 Release these package as FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Here's my +1
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Ad...@swmc.com.
+1
Looks good to me. I did basic testing (reading & writing pages, adding &
parsing bookmarks, decrypting documents and writing the unencrypted
version to disk). I did not do any testing with text extraction, as
that's not a feature I currently use.
Thanks,
Adam
From:
Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>
To:
dev@pdfbox.apache.org
Date:
02/11/2010 06:16
Subject:
[VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Hi,
I've prepared candidates for the FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
releases. They're available for review at:
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/fontbox/
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/pdfbox/
The release candidates are zip archives of the sources in:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/fontbox/tags/1.0.0/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pdfbox/tags/1.0.0/
The SHA1 checksums of the candidate archives are:
fd97306798dd9994e79ab52fba699ea79acd02b4 fontbox-1.0.0-src.zip
d3bf10510e972b2720bcc2e6fd2e6d75cb0eebfb pdfbox-1.0.0-src.zip
A staged Maven repository containing the binary release artifacts is
available at:
http://people.apache.org/~jukka/pdfbox/1.0.0/repo/
I haven't included .NET binaries since I don't have the required
tooling to do that. Daniel, if you can build the binaries and make
them available with your PGP signatures, then I can include them in
the release.
Note that you will need to build and install the FontBox 1.0.0 release
first before building PDFBox 1.0.0 to satisfy the dependency between
the projects.
Please vote on releasing these packages. The vote is open for the next
72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 PDFBox PMC
votes are cast.
[ ] +1 Release these package as FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Here's my +1
Jukka Zitting
? Click here to submit conditions
This email and any content within or attached hereto from Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc. is confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named on this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited, and that the documents should be returned to this office immediately by email. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any privilege. Please do not include your social security number, account number, or any other personal or financial information in the content of the email. Should you have any questions, please call (800) 453 7884.
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please vote on releasing these packages.
The vote passes as follows (* marks a PMC vote):
+1 Adam
+1 Andreas Lehmkühler *
+1 Daniel Wilson *
+1 Jukka Zitting *
+1 Mel Martinez
+0 nisen
0 Villu Ruusman
Thanks for voting! I'll push the release out.
PS. I note the regression brought up by Villu. It's probably easiest
if we handle that in a 1.0.1 patch release soon instead of holding
back this release, as it looks like the problem only affects a subset
of documents. I can include a note about this in the release
announcement.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Villu Ruusmann <vi...@gmail.com>.
Hello there,
> Do you have examples that could become test cases?
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Villu Ruusmann <vi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> now I see approximately 10
>> % of my "text extraction" tests failing. The problem is related to
>> incorrect text decoding (eg. there is gibberish like "b?fi??" instead
>> of text).
>>
>
I have isolated the case as PDFBOX-619. Everything will be fine if
this patch is applied to FontBox 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT.
The discussion about font samples probably merits its own thread. Most
of the time I'm digging copyrighted content (scientific articles),
which embed copyrighted font programs. How would the ASF react if
these font programs were extracted, placed under version control and
used to develop test cases?
VR
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Do you have examples that could become test cases?
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Villu Ruusmann <vi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> now I see approximately 10
> % of my "text extraction" tests failing. The problem is related to
> incorrect text decoding (eg. there is gibberish like "b?fi??" instead
> of text).
>
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
Re: [VOTE] Release FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
Posted by Villu Ruusmann <vi...@gmail.com>.
Hello there,
>
> I've prepared candidates for the FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
> releases. They're available for review at: ...
>
> Please vote on releasing these packages. The vote is open for the next
> 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 PDFBox PMC
> votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release these package as FontBox 1.0.0 and PDFBox 1.0.0
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
If I were a PMC I'd vote 0 (if not -1)
I just checked out the latest FontBox and PDFBox working copies (they
are both ver 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT, but I believe that they are not that much
different from the released ver 1.0.0) and now I see approximately 10
% of my "text extraction" tests failing. The problem is related to
incorrect text decoding (eg. there is gibberish like "b?fi??" instead
of text).
VR