Re: For those who care about batik

2009-01-08 Thread Onkar Shinde
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Vincent Fourmond wrote: > 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 follo

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-10-13 Thread Vincent Fourmond
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 reaso

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-10-07 Thread Vincent Fourmond
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

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-10-07 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
> >> 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 t

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-10-06 Thread Vincent Fourmond
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

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-10-06 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
> > 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 >

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-10-03 Thread Vincent Fourmond
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

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-10-03 Thread Vincent Fourmond
Hello, On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le vendredi 19 septembre 2008 à 20:57 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit : >> > As a side note, fop upstream recommend [1] using batik version which come >> > with >> > theirs tarballs : batik 1.6 with FOP 0.94 and

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-10-03 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
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

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-09-20 Thread Vincent Fourmond
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 lon

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-09-20 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Eric Lavarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 would

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-09-20 Thread Eric Lavarde
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 w

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-09-19 Thread Onkar Shinde
> 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

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-09-19 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
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 uplo

Re: For those who care about batik

2008-09-19 Thread Damien Raude-Morvan
Le vendredi 19 septembre 2008 18:23:00 Vincent Fourmond, vous avez écrit : > Hello, Hi, > 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