FOP Committers:

The attached patch contains my proposed changes to get the build for
javadocs working. My message earlier today on this topic (included below)
had the following errors in it:

* With regard to item 1, Ant handles this platform difference automatically,
so that proposed change has been removed.
* With regard to item 2, Ant 1.4.1 appears to work correctly after all (when
the other problems are fixed), so there is no need for a change there.

My apologies for the confusion on the above items, caused by using the wrong

With regard to item 4, Peter Kullmann pointed out a problem with option b,
so I have implemented option a instead.

The underlying problem was that lib/bin/antRun had DOS line endings in it (I
am running on Linux 6.1), causing it to fail when used by javadoc from
within Ant. This cannot be fixed from within the build.xml file using
fixcrlf because the file is recreated, and (depending on umask) has
not-executable file permissions. Also, you can't use Ant's chmod to fix the
file permissions, because chmod itself relies on antRun to perform the
chmod. I moved the logic that attempted to change antRun's permissions from
build.xml to, and added code to strip out the offending end-of-line
characters to as well. The remaining changes are related to items 3
and 4.

I did not find or create a bug report for this problem. Perhaps I am the
only one experiencing it?

I noticed that code in the "dist-src" target has javadoc turned off. Perhaps
with the attached fix, it can be turned back on again?

javadoc reports numerous errors and warnings as it runs, but I believe those
are separate issues. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Victor Mote (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Enterprise Outfitters (
2025 Eddington Way
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80916
Voice 719-622-0650, Fax 720-293-0044

>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 5:54 AM
> To:   mailing list fop-dev
> Subject:      javadocs
> FOP Developers:
> In my continuing efforts to find a place to document things I 
> learn about FOP, I have wrestled with the build for javadocs. 
> Until making the following changes, that build failed (for me 
> anyway), unless I used Java 1.4. However, it is of some benefit 
> to use the same compiler for class and javadoc builds. The items 
> that follow are probably old news to most of you, and there may 
> be good reasons why we don't want to implement them, but here is 
> what I propose:
> 1. Java 1.2 javadoc cannot handle wildcards in the package names 
> (this feature was not added until 1.4). I have created a file 
> called <fop-root>/build-pkg-list.txt that contains a list of the 
> packages to be built. This file can be used as input to javadoc 
> either on the command line or from within Ant. There may be other 
> ways to implement this list within the build.xml file itself. If 
> there is strong feeling against using the external file, I'll 
> investigate them (I am unsure whether Ant ensures backwards 
> compatibility with older releases of java, or whether its 
> features are mapped to the later releases of java, effectively 
> ignoring newer features with older java environments).
> 2. Ant 1.4.1 appears to have a bug that makes the package list 
> feature discussed in point 1 above fail. However, the bug is 
> fixed in the new 1.5 release. The 1.5 release change list 
> includes a fix for this bug (it is unclear from the release notes 
> when the bug arose).
> In addition, it would be helpful to have the overview.html and 
> package.html files included in the builds:
> 3. It is trivial to add the "overview" attribute to build.xml to 
> handle the overview file.
> 4. Right now, build.xml is excluding html files during its copy 
> from "src" to "build/src", so the package.html files are being 
> omitted. To correct this, we need to either a) not exclude the 
> html files in the copy, or b) use "src" as the root of the 
> javadoc build instead of "build/src". My tentative solution uses 
> option "b". There may be other options as well, but I won't 
> investigate them unless we need to.
> The big issues are 2 & 4, but please let me know if the others 
> cause problems as well. If the above proposal meets with general 
> approval, I'll submit a patch.
> Victor Mote (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Enterprise Outfitters (
> 2025 Eddington Way
> Colorado Springs, Colorado 80916
> Voice 719-622-0650, Fax 720-293-0044 << File: ATT00039.txt >> 

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to