Re: intent to do a poppler transition
On 2006-10-05 16:48:19 -0400 Frank Küster <email@example.com> wrote:
> Two actually, tetex and texlive, since both build the same binary,
> pdftex. How do you know the others don't have a problem? Has anybody
> tried to build the others?
Hmm... it looks like the new poppler does indeed change quite a few things.
Neither PDFKit nor PopplerKit compiles with the libpoppler-dev that's currently in experimental, so that's at least four packages that don't compile out of the box.
I have a patch ready for PDFKit, but there are a few changes that I'm not quite sure about. Ondřej, I'll send you an email privately recarding those changes.
There seems to be a patch for PopplerKit in the Etoile SVN, but I haven't tried it yet.
Ondřej Surý <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Step 2:
> And I will introduce debian specific SONAME for libpoppler, so we are
> not hit by random ABI changes.
Hmm... I'm not sure why you want to do this. Just looking at this current transition, and the fact that the ABI did indeed change in an incompatible manner, there's nothing to indicate to me that a new upstream version does not also require a new SONAME. But I don't know much about the history of poppler, so I'm just basing my opinion on the current situation.
(Having a debian-specific SONAME for the glib or qt bindings might make sense, though, if the ABI did indeed not change for those libraries.)
(And I'll again add my disclaimer about not knowing much about poppler to make a completely educated statement about it.)
Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: email@example.com - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA