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

Re: poppler

Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:00:53PM +0100, Isaac Clerencia wrote:
>> On Monday, 9 January 2006 15:03, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>> > Unfortunately kpdf upstream seems quite reluctant to switch to poppler, see
>> > http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119455. I don't know the status of
>> > koffice.
>> Hi.
>> From an hour ago:
>> #kpdf:
>> 16:22 < isaac> uhm, refresh my memory
>> 16:22 < isaac> will kpdf ever use poppler?
>> 16:22 < isaac> will it be replaced by okular?
>> 16:24 < tsdgeos> maybe
>> 16:24 < tsdgeos> maybe
>> 16:24 < Niedakh> well if poppler's development process becomes more open
> Also from that KDE bug report:
>> It would be nice to see that KDE and GNOME developers really could work
>> together. ;-) 
> It would be even better to see the poppler people working with Xpdf's
> upstream. It's good that not all these packages will have statically-linked 
> copies of xpdf code now. It would be even better if poppler wasn't a
> fork of Xpdf though.

Right;  but from my reading of the poppler archives I understood that
xpdf was not willing to accept patches by the various derivative
projects, and therefore a fork was decided to be necessary for them to
progress.  Doing this in form of a library is for sure a good move.

> Already poppler is behind on a lot of bug fixes from Xpdf 3.01.
> I imagine most have been merged by now, but there's a lot of duplicate
> effort involved.

The poppler people still struggle with their infrastructure, see




Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Reply to: