Sam Ruby wrote: > > I totally agree, even if the choice of separating blocks into their own > > gump projects makes it easier to obtain a clean cocoon run in Gump by > > lowering the dependency needs for the core (Sam, did we ever > get a clean > > Cocoon2 gump build?) > > We have gotten close, but we have never to my knowledge gotten a clean > gump build of cocoon. > Not exactly, months ago gump was happy, and then to many changes appeared in dependent projects, so...but that's the use case for gump, right. So, now we know that we (or others) have to change something.
> First, my feeling is that if there is a better syntax, I would like to > simply adopt it. I don't care what the definition of better is: > technical, community, whatever. > So where is the right place to discuss the syntax? In short: Cocoon has many dependencies but the description for the dependencies is a little bit confusing (at least for me), and has some shortcommings. There is for example no common naming scheme for dependencies, so you can for example call fop either fop, or xml-fop or whatever you want. Carsten
