Re: [xmlroff] pangoxsl rpmbuild on FC2 failed

[Tony G. <Ton...@Su...>]

Jaromir,

Please subscribe to the xmlroff-list rather than sending me mail
directly.

Jaromir Talir <ja...@ip...> writes:
> V P=C3=A1, 15. 10. 2004 v 15:55, Tony Graham p=C3=AD=C5=A1e:
=2E..
> Now we are using fop but because of it's java nature resource
> consumption are very high. Beside passiveTex I don't see any other =
open
> source solution other than xmlroff. From webpages of xmlroff I made
> opinion that xmlroff is still in early stage of development. How wo=
uld
> you compared it's stability and level compared to fop, which seems
> doesnt evolve for past year?

I read the fop-dev mailing list, but I don't use FOP and I don't trac=
k
FOP's capabilities.

To put a positive spin on xmlroff's progress over the last two years,
most of the recent changes in xmlroff have been under the covers.
xmlroff has gone from only using PDFlib to produce output, to using
either PDFlib or GNOME Print, and now to only using GNOME Print; the
property and enumeration token handling is much more consistent; the
code generated by the spec-dump module more accurately reflects the
current conventions for coding a property; and it's now possible to
write parser routines for shorthand properties that don't follow the
usual expression syntax.

The downside of that has been that there hasn't been much increase in
supported FOs and properties in that time.

However, I believe that the project is on an upswing: the project has
two new developers; the website is being actively updated; and the
recent change to using Pango 1.6.0 and libgnomeprint 2.8.0 means both
that we can stop futzing with backends for a while and that xmlroff
now plays better with a GNOME installation.

You can see the current state of xmlroff from the conformance page on
the web site, but even I wouldn't say that it's ready for business
documents.

>> Jaromir Talir <ja...@ip...> writes:
>> > I would like to test xmlroff on Fedora Core 2 installation but:
>> >
>> > rpmbuild -tb pangoxsl-1.2.3.7.tar.gz
>> > - missing /usr/lib/libart_lgpl_2.la. I cannot find any package o=
n my
>> >   system that contains it.
>>=20
>> What about libart_lgpl_2.so?
>
> .so is OK but .la is missing. I have only basic knowledge abut this=
 and
> I thing that this file is somewhat genereated by libtool but
> libart_lgpl-devel-2.3.16-2.1 package which conains libart_lgpl_2.so
> doesn't contain libart_lgpl_2.la and I've been searching a while an=
d
> none of packages can solve this dependency.

I'm still working on this.  I'll get back to you (unless someone else
can solve it first).

=2E..
>> I don't doubt that there's problems with the spec file.  I can't s=
ay
>> that I understand them, and the PangoPDF spec file only worked tha=
nks
>> to the efforts of Tim Waugh.
>>=20
>> Assuming that libpangoxsl-1.0 should be installed into the libdir
>> (i.e., /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib), what changes would you make?
>>=20
>> Regards,
>>=20
>>=20
>> Tony.
>
> I will try to play with spec file a bit and send you my result.

Thanks.

Regards,


Tony.