Hi Carsten, Yes, the Maven build looks good. I've updated the pom.xml file's project version to 0.92, since there have been a few non-apache releases.
I've also committed fixed around a couple of nagging problems. Thanks for removing that reference to the JBIG2 code. I didn't mean to commit that. Charles. On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig L Russell wrote: >> >> Hi Charles, >> >> On Jul 8, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Charles Matthew Chen wrote: >> >>> That report looks good to me. >>> >>> Most people continue to email me personally rather than the apache >>> mailling list, I think because of the lack of an apache release. Is >>> there anyone familiar with the Apache organization who can guide this >>> project to its first release? >> >> Sure. I can help. >> >> This project could have a single source distribution (.zip) and a single >> binary distribution (.jar). >> >> The source distro could be simply a zip of the source tree (rooted at >> trunk). >> >> The binary distro could be the result of building the .jar file and making >> sure that the appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files are included when >> building it. >> >> Both source and binary artifacts need to be signed (detached gpg >> signature) and checksummed (.md5). >> >> The biggest issue is making sure that there is a repeatable build process. >> Something like a "BUILDING.txt" file at the same level as trunk would be >> appropriate. > > The maven build already works, I've setup everything some months ago and we > can just use the mvn release plugin to build the source and bin dists > (and the mvn artifacts). > > I'll do a test build in the next days and we can see if that is what we > want. > > Big +1 for a release :) > > Carsten > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
