On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 02:47, Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > James Mason schrieb: > > On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 03:57, Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > >>(3) Do not forget to update > >> > >>http://jakarta.apache.org/slide/download.html > >> > >>and > >> > >>http://jakarta.apache.org/slide/news.html > >> > >>as well.
I've updated download.xml and news.xml under src/doc then run the doc build target. I can see the updated html files under build/doc. From reading the documentation for the site2 module it sounds like all I need to do now is run `cvs update` in the /www/jakarta.apache.org/slide/ directory. However, I have the sneaking suspicion that what's checked out in that directory is not build/doc but rather ./docs. So should I just manually copy my changes to ./docs then commit/update, or is there a better way to do this? On a related note, I'd like to update the jakarta download pages before I add links pointing to nonexistent urls to our site :). I've updated binindex.xml and sourceindex.xml and built the html files. Everything looks good locally so I think the next step is to commit my changes then run `cvs update` in /www/jakarta.apache.org/site/. I just want to double check before I do something potentially bad :). > >> > >>(4) I checked the Tomcat bundle and it worked fine for me. Have you been > >>able to find out about the patch problem with server.xml? > > > > > > I have no idea what's going on with this. For the time being I just > > manually modified the file, but it's really strange. I even made my own > > patch and tried to apply that and it failed. > > Have you checked if you have write access to that file? Yup. Like I said, I modified the file manually. I'm actually wondering if there's something wrong with the version of `patch` I have installed. That just seems really unlikely, though. > > > > >>(5) The source release (of the server) looks funny to me. I would have > >>expected something you can unpack and compile from scratch like in > >>2.1b1. The one for 2.1b2 only contains the src directory, no build, no > >>docs and no libs. Maybe I have a funny understanding of a source > >>release. What do others think? > > > > > > All I did was run the release target with ant, so I claim no > > responsibility for what was generated :D. You're absolutely right > > though, so I looked at the 2.1b1 release and modified the build script > > so the results match a bit better. There are a lot of files in the root > > of the 2.1b1 release that I wasn't sure should be included (past release > > notes and stuff). Can you check the new archive and make sure I haven't > > missed anything that should be there? > > This looks very good now! Thanks for repeating the work! Not a problem :). > > > Let me know if I missed anything else. > > Looks very good and has my +1 to be released! Well, as soon as I have answers to my documentation questions I'll release it to the world :). -James --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
