Re: [Fwd: Moving the federation forward]

2004-03-26 Thread Berin Lautenbach
Erwin van der Koogh wrote: Last e-mail for tonight - I promise :>. What think people for a security top level project but existing within the xml federation? Of course I am all for it :) :>. But I have been wondering.. do we want to split the stuff into seperate projects under the TLP? XML-S

Re: [GUMP@lsd]: xml-security/xml-security failed

2004-03-26 Thread Berin Lautenbach
Erwin van der Koogh wrote: So maybe the best thing is to just drop this out of the code? And possibly lose support on a couple versions of 1.4? That's what I'm not sure about. If we are telling people to use the endorsed mechanism to override the broken version of Xalan, then I *think* we ar

Re: [Fwd: Moving the federation forward]

2004-03-26 Thread Axl Mattheus
Berin Lautenbach wrote: Erwin van der Koogh wrote: Last e-mail for tonight - I promise :>. What think people for a security top level project but existing within the xml federation? Of course I am all for it :) :>. But I have been wondering.. do we want to split the stuff into seperate proj

Re: [Fwd: Moving the federation forward]

2004-03-26 Thread Erwin van der Koogh
I think so. Although, I'd like to keep the mailing lists for xml-security-c/j the same for now? I get some useful cross ideas from having them together. JuiCE I think should be separate as the domain is quite different. Does that sound reasonable? Sounds reasonable to me. But split the dev and

Re: [Fwd: Moving the federation forward]

2004-03-26 Thread Berin Lautenbach
Erwin van der Koogh wrote: Sounds reasonable to me. But split the dev and user lists? Yup. Actually the lists are there. I will put them on the web pages tomorrow! Cheers, Berin

Re: 'make install' for C++ 1.x on Solaris

2004-03-26 Thread Berin Lautenbach
Scott, Make install works on the Solaris 2.8 system that we have access to, but I suspect that's because we have the GNU install (fileutils) on our system. I will install on a system with no native install tomorrow and see if that breaks things, because I suspect that's where the problem is. (

Re: 'make install' for C++ 1.x on Solaris

2004-03-26 Thread Erwin van der Koogh
Make install works on the Solaris 2.8 system that we have access to, but I suspect that's because we have the GNU install (fileutils) on our system. We have a bunch of Solaris 2.8 systems here with and without GNU stuff installed. I can give it a shot here if you want. But I would need some detail

[GUMP@lsd]: xml-security/xml-security failed

2004-03-26 Thread Sam Ruby
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For help understanding the request please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project xml-security has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue aff

[GUMP@lsd]: xml-security/xml-security failed

2004-03-26 Thread Sam Ruby
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For help understanding the request please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project xml-security has an issue affecting its community integration. This issue aff

RE: 'make install' for C++ 1.x on Solaris

2004-03-26 Thread Scott Cantor
> Make install works on the Solaris 2.8 system that we have access to, but > I suspect that's because we have the GNU install (fileutils) on our > system. Probably so. I'll give it a try myself with that package installed. As long as there's a relatively reasonable way to get make install to work