On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 12:51:23PM +0000, Reuben Thomas wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > >I don't know that that would help. From my point of view, poppler-utils > >has made a hostile takeover of xpdf's role and namespace, but some > >people probably prefer it. > > So if some people prefer it, it is also reasonable to assume that some > people prefer it in some circumstances and not in others, so it should > alternatived!
I don't think that necessarily follows. We already allow the system administrator to decide. Iff we need to allow the decision at the user level then we need alternatives. I don't see them as sufficiently different to warrant it. The intention is that they are the same, I think (unless poppler-utils is adding features not found in xpdf-utils). Probably the only difference then is bugs, which should be reported. > >Could you please submit a bug report with an attached PDF for the faulty > >behaviour you saw with xpdf-utils? > > It's a known bug (filed against cupsys), #322226, to which I have added a > comment. Investigating it with different versions of pstopdf (the > workaround suggested by the reporter) would have been easier if I could've > switched between them using update-alternatives. That's not a common scenario, and I think "apt-get install poppler-utils" and "apt-get install xpdf-utils" is easier than driving update-alternatives. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
