FOP Developers:
PATCH
=
The attached patch contains the following enhancements, all related to
javadocs:
1. The overview has been expanded. Also, the various packages have been
organized into groups, to assist developers in figuring out where to start
looking. It would be very
Keiron Liddle wrote:
> I hope you didn't get the idea that I was ignoring the patch. It is just
> that it is for the branch and it can be a pain to get things set up.
>
> Hopefully another committer with the branch can give a look at it.
>
No, I wasn't worried about that -- I just wanted to make
Hi Victor,
Usually it is a good idea to follow those guidelines.
I hope you didn't get the idea that I was ignoring the patch. It is just
that it is for the branch and it can be a pain to get things set up.
Hopefully another committer with the branch can give a look at it.
On Wed, 2002-07-31 a
I think my submission complied with http://xml.apache.org/fop/involved.html,
but I did not follow the link to http://xml.apache.org/source.html#, and I
see now that my submission was deficient in two ways: 1) not adding the
[PATCH] header, and 2) not using "diff -u". Should I resubmit the patch
us
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 19:01, Victor Mote wrote:
> My goal here is to use the javadocs as an educational tool for getting up to
> speed on FOP. As I went along, I thought I would add javadoc comments as I
> learned something useful that was not already documented. I realize that
> s
Keiron Liddle wrote:
> Are you generating the javadocs from the distribution?
> The problem sounds like a packaging issue. Those files have the line
> endings for the OS they are checked out on.
> As far as I know javadocs has always worked from cvs.
I was generating the javad
d to change antRun's permissions from
> build.xml to build.sh, and added code to strip out the offending end-of-line
> characters to build.sh 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
>
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
Way
> Colorado Springs, Colorado 80916
> Voice 719-622-0650, Fax 720-293-0044 << Datei: ATT6.txt >>
If the javadocs are built from src/ there won't be documentation for the
generated classes. So, I'd stick with build/src/.
Peter
--
Sorry folks, it appears that I spoke too soon. My successful builds were
being done using Java 1.4, not Java 1.2, which still fails, even with the
new Ant. I'll work on it some more.
Vic
<>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
