[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: For those who care about batik



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 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:

Many thanks for your work on packaging batik 1.7 and move to main. I'm one of 
your future-reverse-depends (see ITP #281346 about jasperreports :)

>   * I have no idea of how rdepends should work and how they interact
> with batik so I could not check that.

I've just rebuild your package via pkg-java svn and try to rebuild my 
jasperreports one.
Here is some comments :
- Maybe you should create a NEWS entry about JAR name change : batik.jar 
doesn't exist anymore, the symlink is now batik-all.jar
- Same for xml-apis-ext which is now required on classpath (compile and 
runtime)

Concerning FOP, which has high coupling with batik :
- Build : it seems to build OK when changing Build-Depends and Ant classpath 
during build
- Run : debian/fop.sh need to be ajusted to include xml-apis-ext.jar in 
DIRLIBS. Just generate a PDF from a source FO which include some SVG graphs.
Please note that, I've not tested fop extensively, just with some old FO 
documents with simple SVG.

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

Cheers,
-- 
Damien Raude-Morvan / www.drazzib.com

[1] http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/faq.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: