Rahul Akolkar wrote on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:44 PM: > On 9/6/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip/> >> >> Site: >> >> - site/index.html: the menu has as second item a reference to >> javadoc-1.0, which should be now 1.1 (and is a dead-link anyway) >> - site/index.html: the link in the menu to the examples should >> better point to the viewcvs.cgi version (see links on >> site/cvs-usage.html >> for "subversion viewer") >> - site/index.html: "Releases" section references 1.0 only >> - site/index.html: typo "compatibile" >> - site/releases.html: references 1.0 only >> - site/downloads.html: references 1.0 only (you might have to add the >> version to versions section of the project.xml) >> - site/javadoc.html: The output shows two invalid javadoc links >> > <snap/> > > Thanks for the detailed feedback, I had planned to update the 1.1 > release bits on the site as part of cutting the release. As a > procedural question, I wasn't sure whether a site should talk about > the next release before that vote has actually passed. > > I've corrected the typo and changed examples to the viewcvs > link. Thanks! > > >> Files: >> - the *.tar.gz files show following message unpacking it: "tar: A >> lone zero block at xxxx" (Linux) >> > <snip/> > > Seems this ant issue has the details: > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28776 > > Did that cause any other problems in the actual untarring?
No, just that weird message. I even compared the extracted sources from the zip ang the tar.gz and they were all the same. So it it definately not a showstopper. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
