[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#188307: ITP: gpdf -- GNOME pdf viewer


On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 12:32:48AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I was surprised that neither of you contacted me as Xpdf maintainer,

Hmm, well. I've yet to take a closer look at how much gpdf & xpdf source
are alike; I only just decided gpdf was usable enough when I ITPed.

> since gpdf seems to be mostly based on the Xpdf source. There might be
> some benefits in co-operation.

Well, my 2 minute hack packages were surprisingly correct as packages,
aside from one file getting installed in /usr/libexec. It doesn't have
anything of the (perceived?) complexity of the xpdf packages.

Gpdf is just one binary, and some GNOME specific support files.
It doesn't have (it would be stupid to do so) any of the xpdf utilities.
Nor does it need say xpdf-common installed to work, it's standalone. And
the interface, font rasterizing and rendering canvas are all changed to
use GNOME facilities.

So aside from the pdf interpreter there is probably not too much left in
common; then again, the interpreter is a rather essential part.

> I guess we don't always talk to each other very well in this project.

I only believed gpdf was stable and good enough to be packaged, and -
surprised that noone had before - sent an ITP. To a public forum, no less.

Did I (or Ross for that matter, who apparently didn't even have the time
to make his packages available in Debian shortly) really have to contact
you personally just to tell that I was considering working on packaging
an application which happens to be a GNOME refitted xpdf?

There just isn't anything useful yet IMO at this point to contact you
about. Simple as that.



<asuffield> "Debian is not deadrat. If a user can't figure out what kind of
             mouse they have, they need to find a less complex occupation.
             Like knitting."

Reply to: