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

Re: RFS: pdf-smp

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:38:06 +0200
egregorion <egregorion@gmail.com> wrote:

> > IMHO these desktop files would be MUCH better in the respective
> > command-line packages where a Recommends: is clearly appropriate. I
> > see no reason for two desktop files to create yet another Debian
> > package.
> >
> > Instead, get these desktop files added to each pdf package and make
> > each pdf package (pdftk and pdfjam) Recommend: konqueror.
> IMHO I don't like this way, if I'am a nautilus user, I don't need a
> desktop files that don't are usefull for me... Other my opinion, If I
> want only the command line set of utilities, why put files that are
> not used?

When the files concerned are as tiny as these it is no more of a
problem than adding an extra few lines to the ChangeLog of libxml2 or
glibc. i.e. the effect is inconsequential - except on embedded systems
but Emdebian has ways to solve issues like that.

> In gnome, it is not possible work with pdf files.

I'm sorry??? I hope I know what you meant there - you meant via the
right click. I prefer Gnome just because it doesn't overuse the right
click and I can do everything I need to do with a PDF in Gnome (and
that does not include attachments of any kind or watermarks - I've no
idea why those would be useful to me).

> In kde, and I hope in gnome soon if I'll have time, is possible
> modify pdf with this desktop files.

Personally, I see no need for this "functionality" in Gnome - if I want
to fiddle with a PDF, I load a program that can do the job, not expect
the file manager to do it. This "options for the sake of options" thing
in KDE is exactly why I moved away from KDE originally. There have been
quite enough flamewars about Gnome vs KDE so I'll agree to disagree.

> In graphic mode there are zero option for work with pdf

I've had no problems so far but there you go.

> > In which case, pdftk and pdfjam can also include desktop files for
> > nautilus at a later stage.
> Following your way, is "nautilus-actions-misc.deb" wrong?

For "fundamental" actions that all users will need it would be OK -
having said that, I don't have it installed and haven't missed it yet.

> ok, so in conclusion, I can change the name of the package, but I'll
> not find any sponsor? I've made a try... :)

Yes, I tend to skip sponsorship of KDE packages simply because I
dislike KDE and don't use it (so can't really tell if the package
'fits' with the rest of KDE). Besides, my main interest is embedded or
small utilities that could fit an embedded role and currently,
embedded tends to concentrate more on Gtk than Qt (you don't get the
option of a mix of both on a system with 30Mb of storage - yes
you really can run a version of Gnome in 30 megabytes, not gigabytes).

I've always rated a small executable size higher than lots of
unused functionality (i.e. bloat) in my own programming, so KDE really
just doesn't 'fit' with what I want from my work or desktop. It means I
don't look at sponsoring that many packages (one a month or so) but
then I am too busy with Emdebian and my own upstream/native packages to
do lots and lots of sponsoring anyway. I just lurk on mentors and keep
an eye out for the few RFS requests that peek my interest.

I'll go back to my little embedded corner again and let you all get
on . . .


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpHvgITvcjiB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: