Am 29.08.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Andreas Tille: [...] >> Maybe you should raise this issue with upstream (Batik and/or cgview) > > Well cgview is not actively maintained (but has quite a number of users) > and what exactly should I say to Batik upstream if they decided to move > it to a noew project? I admit I have no idea what to say and where to > report. > > Wouldn't it help more if I simply try to package batik-constants?
I thought it would be more likely to get a more precise answer from them because they certainly know their code best. I am not even sure if batik-constants is a long term solution or if they want to change that again in the future. Depending on the cgview code it may have been possible to patch the sources and make them compatible with Batik 1.10 without packaging batik-constants. If this all sounds too far-fetched, then packaging batik-constants is the way to go. Regards, Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
