Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)
Dear Moritz,
Since I don't know if you follow -mentors, so I'm Cc'ing you. Feel free
to Cc me (even though I follow -mentors, I don't mind being Cc'ed).
On Jun 09 2010, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On 2010-06-04, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> wrote:
> > Just for the record, it seems that things will break again with
> > poppler 0.13.x.
>
> That should not be a concern for Squeeze, since it will stick with
> 0.13?
Did you mean 0.12? Anyway, I am starting to see what will change and
what will not.
> > At least, it does with "my" version of xpdf-poppler. Not sure with
> > yours. But, then, I intend to get your version and cherry pick some
> > of the patches that I have produced and put them together.
> >
> > I have one patch, in particular, that would be good to send you.
Just to keep things sane here, I am trying to keep in touch with
Michael, but, after a while, he stopped replying. Michael, if you are
reading, please get in touch.
Here are some e-mails that you may have missed:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580495#5
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580495#10
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580621#5
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580621#23
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580621#31
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580621#39
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580621#55
> > To be honest, I don't like this "my" and "yours" here. Can we join
> > efforts here? I want to have everything integrated, alive and
> > healthy. I don't like fragmented efforts.
>
> Indeed, it would be ideal if you could join efforts and introduce xpdf
> with the poppler backend.
I agree with you, but it seems that some people would like to stick with
xpdf for the time being (e.g., Norbert Preining, Jakub Wilk), since it
seems that poppler might not have all the flexibility that the basic
xpdf has.
That is, perhaps, only up to the point where the poppler backend gains
more flexibility (shouldn't be too far). There are some documents that
work with poppler better than those with xpdf per se.
> In that case we would be in the great position to only have to update
> one single copy of the xpdf code base (poppler) whenever a security
> issue is found it it. That's quite crucial to keep our ever-growing
> archive maintenable.
Sure, that's a good side effect. And we pick up the correctness fixes
for poppler.
> Unfortunately I don't have the time to sponsor/review the xpdf upload
> myself, but I really hope someone chimes in, that would be a big
> achievement for Squeeze.
That would be awesome to have. In the meantime, I will keep the
poppler-based xpdf in github updated.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
Reply to: