On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Chris Bowditch <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree, but as Simon pointed out PDFBox is not a dependency of FOP, but > of PDF plug-in, which is a separate project with a separate release cycle. > The PDF plug-in project is an optional dependency of FOP, not required for > core functionality. > > So the proposal is just to release the FOP project, not PDF plug-in. This > means anyone wishing to use PDF-plugin with the new release of FOP would > need to build it from source code using a PDFBox snaphot. Not ideal, but we > are long overdue a FOP release, and only a small number of users are using > the PDF plug-in. So I'm +1 to this proposal. > ok; that works for me... on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant configurations are difficult to maintain and understand; we should modernize > > Thanks, > > Chris > > On 22/04/2015 14:28, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> I'm not comfortable requiring use of a snapshot dependency. For example, >> that would prevent deployment to maven central. >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Chris Bowditch < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Glen, >> >> Its expected that a -1 vote includes a justification. You may well >> be right, but we are not mind readers and have no idea what you >> are thinking... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Chris >> >> On 21/04/2015 16:32, Glenn Adams wrote: >> >> -1 >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Simon Steiner >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Since Batik and XGC have been released, are we ready to >> release FOP? >> >> It has been said we can’t release PDF plugin using a snapshot >> release of PDFBox 2.0. PDFBox 1.8 is missing font parsing >> libraries we need for font merging. >> >> We could make release a PDF plugin beta release using >> snapshot of >> PDFBox or ask user to use PDF plugin snapshot version with >> FOP 2.0. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >
