I agree with Rick - I'm a user, I don't use cvs to build my own jars - maybe I should. I build an all-batik.jar manually. Then deploy this thru ANT after JAR signing. I've tried to figure out the minimum number of JARs needed, but it seemed like I needed them all.
I'd be in favor of a single all-batik.jar in the binary dist, and let the cvs users build the individual jars. Thanks, --BobC -----Original Message----- From: Thomas DeWeese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 7:00 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Batik 1.6 Rick Bullotta wrote: > From a user view, not a committer view, of course, there is one (I > think) minor packaging change that could be made which would make life > easier for users/deployers. If the 1.6 build (and ideally the binaries) > had a "batik-all.jar", which simply provided a single-jar deployment > option, it would be quite nice. Just a thought... There is already an 'all-jar' target that builds one large jar file. It is true that we don't include this in the binary release. This is sort of intentional as a toolkit there are several large pieces that are independent of each other, so it really isn't a great idea to just grab everything unless you are really using most of it (although it is admittedly convenient). > > Rick Bullotta > CTO > Lighthammer Software (http://www.lighthammer.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas DeWeese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:49 AM > To: XML Graphics PMC > Cc: Batik Users; Batik Dev > Subject: [VOTE] Release of Batik 1.6 > > Hi PMC, > > I am requesting a vote on releasing Batik 1.6. > > I have created a tag "batik-1_6" that indicates the code > under consideration. All issues raised on batik-dev (basically > just comments on problems with javadocs) have been addressed. > > Sorry, I don't seem to be able to track down the thread on > mail-archives.eu.apache.org. > > I consider there to be one potentially known bug with regards > to setting documents on the Canvas, I believe the bug has been in > Batik since it's last release 1.5.1 and had, to date, not been > noticed. I considered it more risky to try and fix at this point > than to leave the code as is: > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34234 > > The only other issue I can think of is that the current LICENSE > files for pdf-transcoder.jar and xerces_2_5_0.jar are the old 1.1 > Apache License. I will update the pdf-transcoder license to the > 2.0, I am unsure if I can do that for xerces since I think the > jar we are using was released under the 1.1 license, and I would > rather not update the jar at this late date - Opinions? > > Also along these lines there was some question on the Rhino > License (Mozilla) when Apache adopted the 2.0 license, last I > heard we could continue to use it, but things may have changed > without me knowing about it. > > Any other comments or concerns? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
