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

Bug#839869: transition: poppler 0.48.0



In data giovedì 20 ottobre 2016 13:49:55 CET, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort ha scritto:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> On 18/10/16 23:30, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > In data lunedì 17 ottobre 2016 21:11:00 CEST, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort ha scritto:
> >> On 08/10/16 20:34, Pino Toscano wrote:
> >>> In data giovedì 6 ottobre 2016 10:25:57 CEST, Rene Engelhard ha scritto:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:13:14PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> >>>>> This transition impacts the existing poppler libraries in the following ways:
> >>>>> - libpoppler61 → libpoppler64
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>   boomaga
> >>>>>   calligra
> >>>>>   cups-filters
> >>>>>   emacs-pdf-tools
> >>>>>   gambas3
> >>>>>   gdal
> >>>>>   gdcm
> >>>>>   inkscape
> >>>>>   ipe-tools
> >>>>>   pdf2djvu
> >>>>>   pdf2htmlex
> >>>>>   popplerkit.framework
> >>>>>   texlive-bin
> >>>>>   texworks
> >>>>>   xpdf
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe there's stuff missing there for whatever reason. E.g. libreoffice
> >>>> (via libreoffice-pdfimport, https://packages.debian.org/sid/libreoffice-pdfimport).
> >>>>
> >>>> Was in your last transition bugs afaicr, so I wonder what went wrong this time ;)
> >>>
> >>> Oh right, sorry, it was indeed missing.  In the above list there is also:
> >>>
> >>>   libreoffice
> >>>   openscenegraph
> >>>   openscenegraph-3.4
> >>
> >> I see the new poppler is now in experimental. Do the rdeps build against the new
> >> version?
> > 
> > I could test everything but LibreOffice: no failures.
> > 
> > Rene, could you please give LO + poppler/experimental a try? Thanks!
> 
> Rene told me LO is fine. Please go ahead.

Sorry for the late reply -- I was busy and thus I couldn't dedicate the
proper time to follow the transition.

Is the slot for this transtition still open, or should I wait for any
other in progress transitions?

Thanks,
-- 
Pino Toscano

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: