Re: RFS: poppler (updated package)
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:55:10 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 09:36:21PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> ...
> > let's move on to upload xpdf in nice shape.
> >
> > * xpdf 3.02-10 (as planned, please finalize git by tommorow.)
>
> I reviewd your recent changes to packahes and reverted followings:
>
> * 5ebeca9c23695beaadf120f849de2008f4000938
>
> This introduced poppler < 0.13 in Build-Depends.
>
> I do not like this. I am not expert enough to explain here, no packages
> I remember define < type limitation in "Build-Depends:..." in general.
> I also checked packages depending on libpoppler-dev or
> libpoppler-glib-dev such as luatex, inkscape, evince, openoffice.org,
> texlive-bin... For bumping library API, I thought we do Source upload
> or Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs).
OK. The goal there was to prevent downstreams from shipping xpdf
alongside an incompatible poppler, which Ubuntu looks on course to do
[0]. If you know of an appropriate solution to this problem, please let
me know.
> * 5ab7d313878ddee9307f6c609b90dd84d71a8fc2
>
> I also do not like your quick inclusion of versioned dependency to
> libexpat1. This breakage was on mixed system anyway. This versioned
> dependency should be declared by the package if it is needed. Placing
> random dependency definition as workaround is a bad idea.
OK. I agree with that. However, the bug does exist and mixed systems
are a rather common use case for many end users. Wouldn't it be better
to keep the bug open and reassign to fontconfig (where the expat
dependency originates) to have them take a look at the origins of the
issue?
Thanks for your feedback,
Mike
[0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xpdf/+bug/619002
Reply to: