[fedora-java] FOP, gcj, classpath, oh my!

[Dimitris Glezos]

O/H Tommy Reynolds έγραψε:
> Uttered Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com>, spake thus:
> 
>> Tommy - is the barrier to having make run the Java tools the lack of
>> support in xmlto?  If we're this close, maybe we can get xmlto updated
>> in the devel tree (rawhide) right away.  Bonus would be if we could see
>> all of this pushed eventually into updates to FCs 5 and 6.
> 
> Karsten,
> 
> I've had XMLTO working with FOP, and producing PDF's, for quite a
> while now.  As Paul W Frields as pointed out, the PDF's look awful
> because we need work on the stylesheet.

I could try to work on the stylesheet. Are there any useful documents I should
take a look at to install the toolchain instead of googling it and stuff? Any
advices etc?

I guess the work on the graphics/stylesheets could be done with the proprietary
toolchain until the FOSS one works, right?

-dim

> As you probably remember, I sent the appropriate XMLTO patches for
> FOP to Tim Waugh many, many moons ago.  AIUI, his reluctance to add
> them officially has been mostly that FOP wasn't free.  The FOP
> dependancy in the XMLTO RPM would be endlessly confusing.
> 
> If needed I could mangle the patches to use either FOP or passivetex
> so as not to break things while our FOP implementation matures, with
> the default renderer being passivetex.  These are just minor details.
> 
> I lack the java-fu to compile FOP using gcj; if someone could do
> it for me, and maybe send me the patches, I could provide Tim a 
> with a complete package.
> 
> In summary:
> 
> 1) If we could get someone to provide patches to compile FOP using
> gcj, I could do the RPM-fu.
> 
> 2) Having hopes of a FOP rpm, I can update the XMLTO rpm to utilize it.
> 
> 3) Present Tim Waugh with a fait acompli.
> 
> I'm not sure that #3 is sufficient to get the updates into rawhide,
> but it's a necessary step.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 


-- 
Dimitris Glezos
Jabber ID: glezos at jabber.org, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B
http://dimitris.glezos.com/


"He who gives up functionality for ease of use
loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous)
--