Re: tedu print/acroread
> From: Christian Weisgerber
> Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:35 PM
> Subject: Re: tedu print/acroread
> To: ports@openbsd.org
>
>
> Here's some minor cruft where acroread is mentioned. Worth keeping
> or not?
>
> print/a2ps/Makefile:
> .for p in bzip2 gv ghostview dvips pdf2ps acroread tex latex ps2pdf \
> bzip distill netscape html2ps grog convert
> CONFIGURE_ENV+= ac_cv_prog_COM_$p=no
> .endfor
>
> print/cups-filters/Makefile:
> CONFIGURE_ARGS= ${CONFIGURE_SHARED} \
>
> --with-test-font-path=${X11BASE}/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSans.ttf \
> --with-acroread-path=${LOCALBASE}/bin/acroread \
>
>
What about this?
Index: a2ps/Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/a2ps/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.57
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.57 Makefile
--- a2ps/Makefile 3 Feb 2014 19:06:42 - 1.57
+++ a2ps/Makefile 31 Oct 2014 14:57:08 -
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ CONFIGURE_ENV=CPPFLAGS="-I${LOCALBASE}/
ac_cv_prog_EMACS=no \
lispdir=${PREFIX}/share/a2ps/emacs
-.for p in bzip2 gv ghostview dvips pdf2ps acroread tex latex ps2pdf \
+.for p in bzip2 gv ghostview dvips pdf2ps tex latex ps2pdf \
bzip distill netscape html2ps grog convert
CONFIGURE_ENV+= ac_cv_prog_COM_$p=no
.endfor
Index: cups-filters/Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/cups-filters/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.56
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.56 Makefile
--- cups-filters/Makefile 11 Oct 2014 08:50:05 - 1.56
+++ cups-filters/Makefile 31 Oct 2014 14:57:08 -
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ BROKEN-alpha= ICE in cupsfilters/image-j
COMMENT= OpenPrinting CUPS filters
DISTNAME= cups-filters-1.0.61
+REVISION= 0
CATEGORIES=print
SHARED_LIBS += cupsfilters 1.0 # 1.0
@@ -58,7 +59,6 @@ CONFIGURE_ENV=CPPFLAGS="-I${X11BASE}/in
CONFIGURE_ARGS=${CONFIGURE_SHARED} \
--with-test-font-path=${X11BASE}/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSans.ttf \
- --with-acroread-path=${LOCALBASE}/bin/acroread \
--with-gs-path=${LOCALBASE}/bin/gs \
--without-php
Re: tedu print/acroread
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 01:35:52PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> Here's some minor cruft where acroread is mentioned. Worth keeping
>> or not?
>
> Not worth keeping. You can drop them.
> There were only added in case a user wanted acroread but without the need to
> force a build depend.
>
>
>> print/a2ps/Makefile:
>> .for p in bzip2 gv ghostview dvips pdf2ps acroread tex latex ps2pdf \
>> bzip distill netscape html2ps grog convert
>> CONFIGURE_ENV+= ac_cv_prog_COM_$p=no
>> .endfor
>>
>> print/cups-filters/Makefile:
>> CONFIGURE_ARGS= ${CONFIGURE_SHARED} \
>>
>> --with-test-font-path=${X11BASE}/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSans.ttf \
>> --with-acroread-path=${LOCALBASE}/bin/acroread \
>>
>> --
>> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
>>
>
> --
> Antoine
>
Yes please, drop them.
--
David
Re: tedu print/acroread
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 01:35:52PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Here's some minor cruft where acroread is mentioned. Worth keeping
> or not?
Not worth keeping. You can drop them.
There were only added in case a user wanted acroread but without the need to
force a build depend.
> print/a2ps/Makefile:
> .for p in bzip2 gv ghostview dvips pdf2ps acroread tex latex ps2pdf \
> bzip distill netscape html2ps grog convert
> CONFIGURE_ENV+= ac_cv_prog_COM_$p=no
> .endfor
>
> print/cups-filters/Makefile:
> CONFIGURE_ARGS= ${CONFIGURE_SHARED} \
>
> --with-test-font-path=${X11BASE}/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSans.ttf \
> --with-acroread-path=${LOCALBASE}/bin/acroread \
>
> --
> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
>
--
Antoine
Re: tedu print/acroread
Here's some minor cruft where acroread is mentioned. Worth keeping
or not?
print/a2ps/Makefile:
.for p in bzip2 gv ghostview dvips pdf2ps acroread tex latex ps2pdf \
bzip distill netscape html2ps grog convert
CONFIGURE_ENV+= ac_cv_prog_COM_$p=no
.endfor
print/cups-filters/Makefile:
CONFIGURE_ARGS= ${CONFIGURE_SHARED} \
--with-test-font-path=${X11BASE}/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSans.ttf \
--with-acroread-path=${LOCALBASE}/bin/acroread \
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Re: tedu print/acroread
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 09:34:15PM +0100, Erling Westenvik wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 07:43:16PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2014/10/27 20:28, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > > > frantisek holop said: > > > > the devils advocate tonight: > > > > i think this should be asked on misc@ as well. > > > > i dont know how many of those alternatives > > > > can handle pdf forms correctly. having said that > > > > i have no idea if the ports version does. > > > > > > FWIW MuPDF's homepage claims support for "form filling, javascript and > > > transitions". > > > > The form filling in mupdf didn't seem to be very useful when I last tried > > it. > > AFAIK, KDE4's "okular" is the best (only?) alternative when it comes to > form filling abilities that may be in the vicinity of Acrobat's > abilities. I've tried okular a few times on some simple forms but never > attempted any extensive testing as for how complex forms it can manage. Seconded. When it comes to #@$!@$!@ pdf annotations, okular is the only one that "correctly" displays them. Evince is supposed to, but fails most of the times.. Landry
Re: tedu print/acroread
2014-10-27 21:34 GMT+01:00 Erling Westenvik : >> > FWIW MuPDF's homepage claims support for "form filling, javascript and >> > transitions". >> >> The form filling in mupdf didn't seem to be very useful when I last tried it. > > AFAIK, KDE4's "okular" is the best (only?) alternative when it comes to > form filling abilities that may be in the vicinity of Acrobat's > abilities. I've tried okular a few times on some simple forms but never > attempted any extensive testing as for how complex forms it can manage. AFAIK no free viewer has support for OCGs(layers) and JavaScript. Best Martin
Re: tedu print/acroread
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 07:43:16PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2014/10/27 20:28, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > > frantisek holop said: > > > the devils advocate tonight: > > > i think this should be asked on misc@ as well. > > > i dont know how many of those alternatives > > > can handle pdf forms correctly. having said that > > > i have no idea if the ports version does. > > > > FWIW MuPDF's homepage claims support for "form filling, javascript and > > transitions". > > The form filling in mupdf didn't seem to be very useful when I last tried it. AFAIK, KDE4's "okular" is the best (only?) alternative when it comes to form filling abilities that may be in the vicinity of Acrobat's abilities. I've tried okular a few times on some simple forms but never attempted any extensive testing as for how complex forms it can manage. Erling
Re: tedu print/acroread
On 2014/10/27 20:28, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > frantisek holop said: > > the devils advocate tonight: > > i think this should be asked on misc@ as well. > > i dont know how many of those alternatives > > can handle pdf forms correctly. having said that > > i have no idea if the ports version does. > > FWIW MuPDF's homepage claims support for "form filling, javascript and > transitions". The form filling in mupdf didn't seem to be very useful when I last tried it.
Re: tedu print/acroread
frantisek holop said: > the devils advocate tonight: > i think this should be asked on misc@ as well. > i dont know how many of those alternatives > can handle pdf forms correctly. having said that > i have no idea if the ports version does. FWIW MuPDF's homepage claims support for "form filling, javascript and transitions". -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: tedu print/acroread
David Coppa, 27 Oct 2014 17:08: > Given this: > > http://blogs.adobe.com/adobereader/2012/06/one-year-from-now-adobe-reader-and-acrobat-9-eol.html > > Adobe has discontinued the support of Adobe Reader for Linux in June > 2013, and the fact that our port is even older (v7.x)... > > Can we finally put print/acroread to the Attic? > > There're a lot of valid alternatives nowadays! the devils advocate tonight: i think this should be asked on misc@ as well. i dont know how many of those alternatives can handle pdf forms correctly. having said that i have no idea if the ports version does. for the record, i have never used this software :) but maybe some other people do... -f -- questions, questions! does it ever end?!
Re: tedu print/acroread
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Kenneth Westerback wrote: > On 27 October 2014 12:08, David Coppa wrote: >> Given this: >> >> http://blogs.adobe.com/adobereader/2012/06/one-year-from-now-adobe-reader-and-acrobat-9-eol.html >> >> Adobe has discontinued the support of Adobe Reader for Linux in June >> 2013, and the fact that our port is even older (v7.x)... >> >> Can we finally put print/acroread to the Attic? >> >> There're a lot of valid alternatives nowadays! > > I would not step in front of a bus to save it. > > Ken I know it's not linked and one has to manually build and install it... But its mere existence in our ports tree is starting to disgust me. Cheers! David -- "If you try a few times and give up, you'll never get there. But if you keep at it... There's a lot of problems in the world which can really be solved by applying two or three times the persistence that other people will." -- Stewart Nelson
Re: tedu print/acroread
On 27 October 2014 12:08, David Coppa wrote: > Given this: > > http://blogs.adobe.com/adobereader/2012/06/one-year-from-now-adobe-reader-and-acrobat-9-eol.html > > Adobe has discontinued the support of Adobe Reader for Linux in June > 2013, and the fact that our port is even older (v7.x)... > > Can we finally put print/acroread to the Attic? > > There're a lot of valid alternatives nowadays! > > Ciao, > David > -- > "If you try a few times and give up, you'll never get there. But if > you keep at it... There's a lot of problems in the world which can > really be solved by applying two or three times the persistence that > other people will." > -- Stewart Nelson > I would not step in front of a bus to save it. Ken
tedu print/acroread
Given this: http://blogs.adobe.com/adobereader/2012/06/one-year-from-now-adobe-reader-and-acrobat-9-eol.html Adobe has discontinued the support of Adobe Reader for Linux in June 2013, and the fact that our port is even older (v7.x)... Can we finally put print/acroread to the Attic? There're a lot of valid alternatives nowadays! Ciao, David -- "If you try a few times and give up, you'll never get there. But if you keep at it... There's a lot of problems in the world which can really be solved by applying two or three times the persistence that other people will." -- Stewart Nelson
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On 2012/04/24 17:30, Brad Smith wrote: > On 24/04/12 5:17 PM, Marc Espie wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:00:06PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: > >>On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > >>>On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: > Who uses this? > >>> > >>>Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit > >>>its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't > >>>seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. > >> > >>Then, I'll see if it can be updated... The pre-WWII version we have > >>now is pretty useless > >That would be cool... > > > >you may find out the linux emul is now dreadfully old. > > Being limited to i386 is pretty killer too. I imagine supporting this would be asking a bit much of qemu-user ;)
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On 2012/04/25 19:16, russell wrote: > On 04/24/2012 03:35 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >On 2012/04/24 23:17, Marc Espie wrote: > >>On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:00:06PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: > >>>On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: > >Who uses this? > > Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit > its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't > seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. > >>> > >>>Then, I'll see if it can be updated... The pre-WWII version we have > >>>now is pretty useless > >>That would be cool... > >> > >>you may find out the linux emul is now dreadfully old. > > > >It runs dwarf fortress, what more do we need (except amd64 support :) > > > does it? hah! > close the curtains, lock the doors. > leave the phone off the hook. > I know what I'm doing tonight... > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.ports/50797 the fedora-emul part was committed so you can probably just use the package at http://junkpile.org/df/dwarf-fortress-0.31.25.tgz
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On 04/24/2012 03:35 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2012/04/24 23:17, Marc Espie wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:00:06PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: Who uses this? Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. Then, I'll see if it can be updated... The pre-WWII version we have now is pretty useless That would be cool... you may find out the linux emul is now dreadfully old. It runs dwarf fortress, what more do we need (except amd64 support :) does it? hah! close the curtains, lock the doors. leave the phone off the hook. I know what I'm doing tonight...
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:54:24PM -0400, Lawrence Teo wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:48:45AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: > > > Who uses this? > > > > Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit > > its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't > > seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. > > print/apvlv has been working pretty well for me, but I'm not a heavy > PDF user. Or textproc/mupdf if you don't like poppler or don't want to install too many dependencies. -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On 2012/04/24 23:17, Marc Espie wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:00:06PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: > > >> Who uses this? > > > > > > Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit > > > its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't > > > seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. > > > > Then, I'll see if it can be updated... The pre-WWII version we have > > now is pretty useless > That would be cool... > > you may find out the linux emul is now dreadfully old. It runs dwarf fortress, what more do we need (except amd64 support :)
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On 2012/04/24 16:54, Lawrence Teo wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:48:45AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: > > > Who uses this? > > > > Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit > > its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't > > seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. > > print/apvlv has been working pretty well for me, but I'm not a heavy > PDF user. apvlv uses basically the same renderer as xpdf (as do most of the open-source readers). other than these xpdf/poppler renderers, the primary different implementations are adobe's and MuPDF. if you have files MuPDF won't render that you can share with the developers, please open a ticket at http://bugs.ghostscript.com/
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On 24/04/12 5:17 PM, Marc Espie wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:00:06PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: Who uses this? Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. Then, I'll see if it can be updated... The pre-WWII version we have now is pretty useless That would be cool... you may find out the linux emul is now dreadfully old. Being limited to i386 is pretty killer too. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:00:06PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: > >> Who uses this? > > > > Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit > > its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't > > seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. > > Then, I'll see if it can be updated... The pre-WWII version we have > now is pretty useless That would be cool... you may find out the linux emul is now dreadfully old.
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:48:45AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: > > Who uses this? > > Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit > its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't > seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. print/apvlv has been working pretty well for me, but I'm not a heavy PDF user.
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: >> Who uses this? > > Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit > its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't > seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently. Then, I'll see if it can be updated... The pre-WWII version we have now is pretty useless
Re: tedu print/acroread?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 17:03, David Coppa wrote: > Who uses this? Ironically, I was using it not all that long ago, because xpdf shit its pants on about half the PDFs I was trying to read. But it doesn't seem to be installed currently, so I haven't needed it recently.
tedu print/acroread?
Who uses this? Opinions? ciao, David
