Bug#649476: fop: Failure confirmed with 1:1.0.dfsg2-3 but not with 1:0.95.dfsg-11
2011/12/8 Vincent Hobeïka vincent.hobe...@cosmo-platform.org: Hi, On Wednesday 07 December 2011 21:03:43 Raphael Hertzog wrote: Why not trying to find the problematic commit in the fop history instead? I have tried to build the pdf against the trunk version of fop and it passes (revision 1211788). Another user is confirming this on the fop users mailing list. Adding reference: http://www.mail-archive.com/fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org/msg17887.html fop 0.95 and 1.0 from debian do not always behave stricly as fop downloaded from apache.org website since fop comes with its own convenient copies of 3rd party libs. I'll try to reduce test case. Thanks -- Mathieu __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#649476: fop: Failure confirmed with 1:1.0.dfsg2-3 but not with 1:0.95.dfsg-11
Hi, On Wednesday 07 December 2011 21:03:43 Raphael Hertzog wrote: Why not trying to find the problematic commit in the fop history instead? I have tried to build the pdf against the trunk version of fop and it passes (revision 1211788). Another user is confirming this on the fop users mailing list. -- Vincent Hobeïka signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#649476: fop: Failure confirmed with 1:1.0.dfsg2-3 but not with 1:0.95.dfsg-11
Package: fop Severity: normal Dear Raphaël, I have tested your issue with 1:1.0.dfsg2-3 and 1:0.95.dfsg-11. I confirm this bug for 1:1.0.dfsg2-3. However on 1:0.95.dfsg-11 I was able to produce the User Guide.pdf without any problem. I have started a thread on fop users mailing list. We are trying to find the defective snippet but it's quite hard due to the heavy file size. Do you have a diff of the User Guide.fo from where it started to fail building? From what comes out so far it seems that using fo:inline within a fo:block with hyphenate=true linefeed-treatment=preserve throws a NullPointerException. This bug is probably related to #48806 [1] and #46386 [2]. [1] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48806 [2] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46386 Best regards, -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0.3 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable'), (200, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages fop depends on: ii gcj-4.4-jre-headl 4.4.5-2Java runtime environment using GIJ ii gcj-jre-headless 4:4.4.5-1 Java runtime environment using GIJ ii java-wrappers 0.1.16 wrappers for java executables ii libavalon-framewo 4.2.0-7Common framework for Java server a ii libbatik-java 1.7-6 xml.apache.org SVG Library ii libbsf-java 1:2.4.0-4 Bean Scripting Framework to suppor ii libcommons-io-jav 1.4-3 Common useful IO related classes ii libcommons-loggin 1.1.1-8commmon wrapper interface for seve ii libxalan2-java2.7.1-5XSL Transformations (XSLT) process ii libxerces2-java 2.9.1-4.1 Validating XML parser for Java wit ii libxml-commons-ex 1.3.05-2 XML Commons external code - DOM, S ii libxmlgraphics-co 1.3.1.dfsg-5 reusable components used by Batik ii libxp61:1.0.0.xsf1-2 X Printing Extension (Xprint) clie ii libxt61:1.0.7-1 X11 toolkit intrinsics library ii libxtst6 2:1.1.0-3 X11 Testing -- Record extension li ii openjdk-6-jre-hea 6b18-1.8.10-0+squeeze2 OpenJDK Java runtime, using Hotspo ii sun-java6-jre [ja 6.26-0squeeze1 Sun Java(TM) Runtime Environment ( Versions of packages fop recommends: ii libsaxon-java 1:6.5.5-6 The Saxon XSLT Processor Versions of packages fop suggests: pn fop-doc none (no description available) pn libservlet2.4-javanone (no description available) -- no debconf information __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#649476: fop: Failure confirmed with 1:1.0.dfsg2-3 but not with 1:0.95.dfsg-11
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, Vincent Hobeika wrote: I confirm this bug for 1:1.0.dfsg2-3. However on 1:0.95.dfsg-11 I was able to produce the User Guide.pdf without any problem. Yes, the build used to work with the old fop. I have started a thread on fop users mailing list. We are trying to find the defective snippet but it's quite hard due to the heavy file size. Do you have a diff of the User Guide.fo from where it started to fail building? Not really, this file is generated from a docbook file with an xslt stylesheet. It might be that all versions of the file fail with the new fop... One could try a git bisect on a git-svn repository created from http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/publican/ but I'm not sure it would lead to something useful. Why not trying to find the problematic commit in the fop history instead? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/liberation/ __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
