Re: intent to do a poppler transition
Ondřej Surý <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 22:39 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> Dear Ondrej!
>> Can you now tell us what the status is? It is a bit unclear for me? I
>> can create new packages for texlive-bin with the changed patch, or leave
>> Are the packages you want to upload to unstable already in experimental,
>> or available in any other place? If yes I could at least try in my
>> cowbuilder whether building works.
> 0.5.4-2 is in experimental (i386) and can be used as base for
Well, we can use them as a base for testing. However, it seems as if
starting the transition would be a bit premature. I have seen a couple
of questions that are not yet answered:
- Since the API changed, shouldn't the -dev package change its name, or
is this information in the Library Packaging Guide controversial? Or
even if it's generally consensual, should the name still be kept
unchanged because plain libpoppler doesn't guarantee any API anyway?
- In any case, shouldn't we carefully check all affected packages,
whether they FTBFS and whether they still work? This would IMO
require a phase where all of them are in experimental, except poppler
itself in case it gets a new dev package name.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)