https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
--- Comment #9 from Radu Coravu 2012-04-10 06:03:59 UTC
---
Hi Glenn,
I tested with the latest nightly binary build of Apache Fop and indeed the
issue does not appear anymore.
So you can probably consider it fixed.
--
Configure bugmail:
On 04/04/12 18:02, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> Thanks for your extensive study!
>
> On 03/04/12 10:31, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 03/04/12 01:16, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>>
From a quick look that sounds about right. Are you developing with a 1.7
JDK?
You would have to m
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49740
--- Comment #8 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-09 19:42:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > Created attachment 26835 [details]
> > > Patch proposal
> > >
> > > The patch uses a differe
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49121
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49740
D.P.Eagle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50098
--- Comment #4 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-09 19:15:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This doesn't require a single FO to demonstrate the point, it was more of a
> marker for illustrating a flaw in how the AFP rendering works. The AFP pain
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50098
--- Comment #3 from Mehdi Houshmand 2012-04-09 19:02:49 UTC
---
This doesn't require a single FO to demonstrate the point, it was more of a
marker for illustrating a flaw in how the AFP rendering works. The AFP painter
does a lot of arithm
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51150
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
Severity|enhancem
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52289
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51327
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50098
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--
Configure bugmail: http
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50098
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Glen
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--
Configure bugmail: http
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50725
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--
Configure bugmail: http
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43940
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--- Comment #15 from Glenn
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51150
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Shahaf 2012-04-09 17:39:43
UTC ---
The content of attachment 28561 has been deleted by
Daniel Shahaf
who provided the following reason:
Message-ID: <4f82ca3e.8080...@rcub.bg.ac.rs>
The token used to delet
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51150
--- Comment #12 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-09 15:23:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Ok, I will take a look if proposed pathces by Andreas and Julien for bug
> #43940
> still work, and do they solve problems with Tomcat memory leak.
di
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43940
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |normal
--
Configure bugmail: https:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #8 from Glenn Adams
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
--- Comment #6 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-09 14:53:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Glenn, I've attached the files you requested. I'm also changing the bug status
> to NEW.
thanks, this should be sufficient to proceed with work on a fix
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Clay Leeds wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly
>> large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the
>> benefits of having CMS-based documentation.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
Tiago Torres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #5 from Tiago Torre
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
--- Comment #4 from Tiago Torres 2012-04-09
14:36:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 28566
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28566
Log written during the PDF generation
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
--- Comment #3 from Tiago Torres 2012-04-09
14:34:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 28565
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28565
PDF generated by Apache FOP
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/u
On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly
> large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the
> benefits of having CMS-based documentation.
>
> What prevents you from using the existing xdoc for
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
--- Comment #7 from Radu Coravu 2012-04-09 12:45:26 UTC
---
Created attachment 28563
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28563
Added minimal FO file to reproduce the problem.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.ap
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52704
--- Comment #11 from Jeremias Maerki 2012-04-09 11:54:55
UTC ---
I'm pretty sure the following will be the outcome of the request for comment to
the ASF legal list: The sRGB profile will likely need to be removed from the
Subversion reposi
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51150
--- Comment #11 from Ognjen Blagojevic
2012-04-09 11:10:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 28562
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28562
Same example with simplified FO file.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apach
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43940
Ognjen Blagojevic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||51150
--
Configure bugmail: h
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51150
Ognjen Blagojevic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||43940
--
Configure bugmail: h
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51150
Ognjen Blagojevic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #10 from Ognje
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51150
--- Comment #9 from Ognjen Blagojevic
2012-04-09 10:55:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28561
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28561
Example demonstrating the problem
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51935
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--- Comment #8 from Glenn A
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49636
--- Comment #6 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-09 07:16:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 28559 [details]
> Look in the FO file for the character entity ࢚
>
> I added an example to reproduce the problem.
when you provide a
34 matches
Mail list logo
