Bug#856652: marked as done (RFS: xpdf/3.04.real-5 [ITA])

Your message dated Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:09:36 -0700 with message-id <20170312150936.63fmfugh5qgb6...@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.04.real-5 [ITA] has caused the Debian Bug report #856652, regarding RFS: xpdf/3.04.real-5 [ITA] to be marked as done. This

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.04.real-5 [ITA]

Sean Whitton wrote: > After the release of stretch, I intend to work on removing xpdf from the > archive for the reason that it is unmaintainable, not because it depends > on poppler. Orphaning does not mean that a package is unmaintainable. As I've stated elsewhere I will continue to be willing

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.04.real-5 [ITA]

Svante Signell wrote: > What else do you need? What are your problems with a _real_ upstream xpdf? You don't seem to get what everyone is telling you. If you are not capable of or willing to maintain xpdf with the poppler backend, then you should not be its maintainer. If a non-popplerized xpdf

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

hi Svante, I could not find the xpdf upstream developer pages. Your message here: On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Svante Signell wrote: And FYI: Quoting from upstream, sent to me yesterday: Regarding security bugs, I try to respond to those as quickly as possible. gives the impression that there is jus

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 12:48 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Dear Svante, > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:55:18AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > I still don't get it. The proposed package _doesn't_ depend on poppler any > > more. > > If you have problems with previous xpdf+poppler versions up to 3.04

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Dear Svante, On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:55:18AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > I still don't get it. The proposed package _doesn't_ depend on poppler any > more. > If you have problems with previous xpdf+poppler versions up to 3.04-4, remove > these from the archive then! I don't see how we coul

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 08:10 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2017-03-08 at 07:59, Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 07:41 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > > > > On 2017-03-08 at 00:55, Svante Signell wrote: > > > > I still don't get it. The proposed package _doesn't_ depend on > > >

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On 2017-03-08 at 07:59, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 07:41 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2017-03-08 at 00:55, Svante Signell wrote: >>> I still don't get it. The proposed package _doesn't_ depend on >>> poppler any more. If you have problems with previous >>> xpdf+poppler v

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 07:41 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2017-03-08 at 00:55, Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 22:43 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > > > > > > I don't see where your concerns regard

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On 2017-03-08 at 00:55, Svante Signell wrote: > On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 22:43 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: >> >>> I don't see where your concerns regarding security are, please >>> explain. >> >> Your package can't enter the

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 13:56 -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 07:28:37PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 09:46 -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing > > > purposes, according to the INSTALL file. 

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 22:43 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > I don't see where your concerns regarding security are, please explain. > > Your package can't enter the archive since this would require to fix > all security issues

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Dear Svante, On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > In my opinion, the code bases have diverged too far, yes. The fact that the code bases have diverged too far for the current maintenance practice to continue fails to entail that they have diverged too far that we woul

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > I don't see where your concerns regarding security are, please explain. Your package can't enter the archive since this would require to fix all security issues in poppler/xpdf twice instead of just once in the library package. Che

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Dear Svante, On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > I don't see where your concerns regarding security are, please explain. > Reading > more about the bugs in xpdf, the problems are mainly created by the use of > poppler as a backend, not when using the _real_ upstream

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 08:30 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2017-03-07 at 08:12, Svante Signell wrote: ... Sorry, I still don't get it: - Which packages still depend on > > poppler, unless via xpdf? The ones directly dependant on poppler are > > not affected. > > Yes, they are; if a newly-discover

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Hello, >>> Maybe I don't understand. The version of xpdf I'm proposing is no >>> longer dependent on poppler. So why are you talking about >>> poppler? >> Probably I don't get it either, but there is the EmbeddedCodeCopies repository, where you can list such "exceptions" just in case https://w

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On 2017-03-07 at 08:12, Svante Signell wrote: > On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 06:49 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2017-03-04 at 14:19, Svante Signell wrote: > ... >>> Maybe I don't understand. The version of xpdf I'm proposing is no >>> longer dependent on poppler. So why are you talking about >>> p

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 06:49 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2017-03-04 at 14:19, Svante Signell wrote: ... > > Maybe I don't understand. The version of xpdf I'm proposing is no  > > longer dependent on poppler. So why are you talking about poppler? > > Because other packages do still depend on pop

Re: Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On 2017-03-04 at 14:19, Svante Signell wrote: > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 11:49 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > >> Dear Svante, >> >> I agree with you that a poppler-based xpdf is not maintainable >> until and unless xpdf upstream switches to poppler. However, it is >> not clear to me why we shouldn't

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 17:36 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: noowner -1 > > > OK, got it. Are you still interested to sponsor this package, now when > > you know about status quo? If so, I'll create an account at > > alioth.debian.org and we'll continue from there. > > I was hoping that you

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 17:36 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: noowner -1 > > Dear Svante, > > On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 01:56:59AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 17:39 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > I'm not referring to currently known security issues.  I'm referring >

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

control: noowner -1 Dear Svante, On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 01:56:59AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 17:39 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > I'm not referring to currently known security issues.  I'm referring > > to issues that are yet to be discovered. > > OK, got it. Are you

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 17:39 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Dear Svante, > > On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 12:59:34AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > > The security issues that I have raised. > > > > Which security issues? Please let me know (links please), so I can > > check them out. I really do take t

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Dear Svante, On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 12:59:34AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > The security issues that I have raised. > > Which security issues? Please let me know (links please), so I can > check them out. I really do take this seriously. On the other hand, are > there any security issues wit

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 16:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 11:13:53PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > OK, including the real upstream tarball solves that issue, right? > > It wouldn't, since the sources of hello.pdf are not included in that > tarball (apparently). On the co

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 11:13:53PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > OK, including the real upstream tarball solves that issue, right? It wouldn't, since the sources of hello.pdf are not included in that tarball (apparently). > (Sorry, I don't really see the problem with me wanting to adopt the > (r

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 14:01 -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:19:43PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > And BTW: poppler upstream seems to be freedesktop.org, i.e. gnome. > > Who > > can trust gnome nowadays, especially people preferring systemd-free > > software? > > Sniping a

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sun, 2017-03-05 at 02:50 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 01:56:26PM -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > > > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for > > > > testing purposes, according to the INSTALL file.  It would > > > > likely need to be repacked to re

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 01:56:26PM -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing > > > purposes, according to the INSTALL file.  It would likely need to be > > > repacked to remove that file. > > > > What's the problem with that file? It is not

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:19:43PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > And BTW: poppler upstream seems to be freedesktop.org, i.e. gnome. Who > can trust gnome nowadays, especially people preferring systemd-free > software? Sniping at GNOME aside, freedesktop.org is independent from GNOME, and poppler'

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 07:28:37PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 09:46 -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing > > purposes, according to the INSTALL file.  It would likely need to be > > repacked to remove that file.

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Dear Svante, On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:19:43PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > Maybe I don't understand. The version of xpdf I'm proposing is no > longer dependent on poppler. So why are you talking about poppler? > Which are the security issues of upstream xpdf? I'd really like to > know, and if

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 11:49 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Dear Svante, > > I agree with you that a poppler-based xpdf is not maintainable until > and unless xpdf upstream switches to poppler.  However, it is not > clear to me why we shouldn't just remove xpdf from Debian.  The main > reason that De

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Dear Svante, On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 06:43:35PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > This is the big problem, the two code bases are diverging. See a good > description about the status of xpdf from December 2013: > https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/the_sorry_state_of_xpdf_in_debian > > After my asking a

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 07:31:30PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > I'll learn to use git, I let you know when I'm fluent enough for that. > However, creating an account on github is not any of my preferences, it > is non-free software. Maybe I can use gitlab (which is semi-non-free)? I completely u

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 09:46 -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:02:29AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > It sounds like the source should not in fact be repacked.  What do > > you > > think, Svante? > > The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing > purposes

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 07:50 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:36:56PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > BTW: Do I need to publish my packages somewhere locally? I > > currently > > don't have a web server running. Or is it possible to just use > > dput? > > If we're going to b

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 08:02 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Dear Jason, > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 12:00:19AM -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > > If you're going to adopt the Xpdf package, I thought you might want > > to > > know a little about Xpdf first and why the Debian package is the > > way > > that

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:02:29AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > It sounds like the source should not in fact be repacked. What do you > think, Svante? The upstream xpdf source contains a file misc/hello.pdf for testing purposes, according to the INSTALL file. It would likely need to be repacked

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Dear Jason, On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 12:00:19AM -0600, Jason Crain wrote: > If you're going to adopt the Xpdf package, I thought you might want to > know a little about Xpdf first and why the Debian package is the way > that it is. The Debian package modifies Xpdf to make it use poppler > (https:/

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:36:56PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > BTW: Do I need to publish my packages somewhere locally? I currently > don't have a web server running. Or is it possible to just use dput? If we're going to be using git, you just need to publish the git repository somewhere (githu

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:29:44AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my ITA package "xpdf" If you're going to adopt the Xpdf package, I thought you might want to know a little about Xpdf first and why the Debian package is the way that it is. The Debian package modifie

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:36:56PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > BTW: Do I need to publish my packages somewhere locally? I currently > don't have a web server running. Or is it possible to just use dput? That's exactly what mentors.debian.net is there for: to provide a server for RFSes so you do

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 13:12 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Dear Svante, > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:25:59PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > Seems like I made some errors when uploading and sending the RFS > > request: > > 1) I did not change the Maintainer: field in debian/control > > 2) Looking

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Dear Svante, On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:25:59PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > Seems like I made some errors when uploading and sending the RFS request: > 1) I did not change the Maintainer: field in debian/control > 2) Looking at the uploaded package the RFS files says: > Need a sponsor? No. >

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 06:24 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 +moreinfo > control: owner -1 ! > > Dear Svante, > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:29:44AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for my ITA package "xpdf" > > I'd like to sponsor this. > > > xpdf (3.04.r

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

control: tag -1 +moreinfo control: owner -1 ! Dear Svante, On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:29:44AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my ITA package "xpdf" I'd like to sponsor this. > xpdf (3.04.real-4) experimental; urgency=medium > >   * New maintainer (Closes: #848631)

Re: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 12:23 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:16 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found > > > > > > https://mentors.debian.net/my > > Thanks, found out that I had to upload the public gpg key too. Seems li

Re: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:16 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found > > > https://mentors.debian.net/my Thanks, found out that I had to upload the public gpg key too.

Re: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found https://mentors.debian.net/my G.

Re: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 11:29 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal ... > The files should be available at: > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf > but is not yet. However uploading was successful: > dput mentors xpdf_3.04.real-4_amd64.changes

Bug#856652: RFS: xpdf/3.0.4.real-4

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my ITA package "xpdf"  * Package name: xpdf    Version : 3.0.4.real-4 Changelog entry: xpdf (3.04.real-4) experimental; urgency=medium   * New maintainer (Closes: #848631)   * Build using th

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:31:52 + Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 07:21:46PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > Would anyone be so kind as to sponsor an RC bug fix upload for xpdf? > > A diff is attached. The package is available for review at: > > http://mentors.debian.net/de

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 07:21:46PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Would anyone be so kind as to sponsor an RC bug fix upload for xpdf? > A diff is attached. The package is available for review at: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf Certainly; it's uploading now. -- Jonathan W

RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi, Would anyone be so kind as to sponsor an RC bug fix upload for xpdf? A diff is attached. The package is available for review at: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf Thanks, Mike xpdf.debdiff Description: Binary data

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Mo, 21 Jun 2010, Rogério Brito wrote: > > > It seems to depend on wxlua, right? Is this packaged in our > > > archives? I didn't find the necessary headers, but I am interested > > > in trying it out, sure. > > > > No, not packaged. That is the reason I started on it for packaing. > > Thank y

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi there. On Jun 21 2010, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:05:57 -0300 Rogério Brito wrote: > > * Would you consider including the latest versin of the zooming patch > > that I sent you? > > Where is that at? Has it been well-tested? The previous zoom patch > broke a bunch of o

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:05:57 -0300 Rogério Brito wrote: > * Would you consider including the latest versin of the zooming patch > that I sent you? Where is that at? Has it been well-tested? The previous zoom patch broke a bunch of other things, and I've disabled it for now. If this new versio

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Jun 12 2010, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Fr, 11 Jun 2010, Rogério Brito wrote: > > I am very confused with the svn repo of texlive. I did find an > > apparently unpatched version of ps_view (is its name there psv?), but no > > adaptations. > > Hmm, maybe I missed that we are in line now ... T

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi there. On Jun 20 2010, Michael Gilbert wrote: > I would be very appreciative if anyone has the time to review and > sponsor this package. See new version at: > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf I just got time for a mini-review. * Nice that you added credits to me for a pa

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:14:32 +0200 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > $ wget > "http://www.compta-entrepreneurs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/guide_auto_entrepreneur.pdf"; > > $ xpdf guide_auto_entrepreneur.pdf > Error: Couldn't open 'nameToUnicode' file > '/usr/share/poppler/nameToUnicode/Greek' > Erro

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:14:32 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Gilbert > wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:34:13 +0200 Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > > > >> Le samedi 05 juin 2010, Michael Gilbert a écrit : > >> > If you can pinpoint some example files that crash ev

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:34:13 +0200 Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > >> Le samedi 05 juin 2010, Michael Gilbert a écrit : >> > If you can pinpoint some example files that crash evince but work fine >> > in xpdf, I will test them.  So far, I have not en

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:34:13 +0200 Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > Le samedi 05 juin 2010, Michael Gilbert a écrit : > > If you can pinpoint some example files that crash evince but work fine > > in xpdf, I will test them. So far, I have not encountered any issues > > myself. Gentoo has been shipping xpdf-

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 00:45:31 +0400 Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 12:24:15PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 02:20:22 +0400 Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > > > On the other hand, xpdf opens all > > > files without any problems, but can be a bit slower in scro

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Fr, 11 Jun 2010, Rogério Brito wrote: > I am very confused with the svn repo of texlive. I did find an > apparently unpatched version of ps_view (is its name there psv?), but no > adaptations. Hmm, maybe I missed that we are in line now ... > > Well, I have it running here, too, but I am too l

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi, Norbert. On Jun 04 2010, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Do, 03 Jun 2010, Rogério Brito wrote: > > http://rb.doesntexist.org/blog/2010/05/27/please-let-me-zoom-my-documents/ > > I read that, and might I suggest ps_view? (also pdf viewer). Sure, suggestions are always welcome. > Probably the be

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Dear Moritz, Since I don't know if you follow -mentors, so I'm Cc'ing you. Feel free to Cc me (even though I follow -mentors, I don't mind being Cc'ed). On Jun 09 2010, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On 2010-06-04, Rogério Brito wrote: > > Just for the record, it seems that things will break again

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On 2010-06-04, Rogério Brito wrote: > On 06/04/2010 01:36 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: >> Thanks for spotting this! I've just uploaded xpdf with a versioned >> depenedency on libpoppler-dev: >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf > > Just for the record, it seems that things will brea

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On So, 06 Jun 2010, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Could we instead try to collaborate between xpdf and texlive? I only > had to apply four small few-line patches to get xpdf with poppler > working, which isn't that overburdensome. I can do this for future But probably texlive uses more than xpdf itse

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 21:13:11 +0900 Norbert Preining wrote: > On So, 06 Jun 2010, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > The problem is that interfaces used by software like texlive, cups, > > inkscape or pdf2djvu are considered private by poppler developers[2]. > [...] > > [2] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bu

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:24:31 +0200 Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Norbert Preining , 2010-06-06, 14:21: > >Poppler people are simply completely ignorant wrt to breaking API. If > >you look into the amount of different patches we had to create for > >poppler 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 0.10, 0.12 and so on, I am sure t

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On So, 06 Jun 2010, Jakub Wilk wrote: > The problem is that interfaces used by software like texlive, cups, > inkscape or pdf2djvu are considered private by poppler developers[2]. [...] > [2] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7054 So, that means for me that: - I will stop compiling Te

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

* Norbert Preining , 2010-06-06, 14:21: Poppler people are simply completely ignorant wrt to breaking API. If you look into the amount of different patches we had to create for poppler 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 0.10, 0.12 and so on, I am sure this will continue. SO actually I considered to switch back t

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Do, 03 Jun 2010, Rogério Brito wrote: > Hi, there. > > On Jun 03 2010, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > > This change is for sure quite significant. BTW, do you know if the > > internal code in xpdf is equivalent feature wise to poppler? I know > > that poppler was a spin-off of the rendering code

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Jun 05 2010, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > I never saw any file that made Evince crash, but I saw some files that > Xpdf renders perfectly and where Evince does not display at all some > fonts. For instance the LaTeX fontspec package's documentation, that > you can find at

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi, Jakub. On Jun 04 2010, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Rogério Brito , 2010-06-03, 16:00: > >Thank you very much for your warm reception. :-) > > Don't get me wrong: I believe that all PDF readers in Debian suck > and I appreciate that you want to change that state. Ah, now your opinion is clearer. >

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi again, Charles. On Jun 04 2010, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 02:47:27PM -0300, Rogério Brito a écrit : > > Just as a quick question, if you use xpdf with the poppler backend, > > do you have poppler-data installed? It contains the character > > mappings established by adobe f

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 12:24:15PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 02:20:22 +0400 Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > > On the other hand, xpdf opens all > > files without any problems, but can be a bit slower in scrolling > > sometimes. The last is not a problem. I am simply afraid tha

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Le samedi 05 juin 2010, Michael Gilbert a écrit : > If you can pinpoint some example files that crash evince but work fine > in xpdf, I will test them. So far, I have not encountered any issues > myself. Gentoo has been shipping xpdf-poppler for a few years now, and I > haven't seen any complaints

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 02:20:22 +0400 Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:05:21PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > I can't say anything definitive, but I can speculate that it will > > not be a problem, and here is the logic: > > > > xpdf's rendering code is itself essentially an

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:05:21PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > I can't say anything definitive, but I can speculate that it will > not be a problem, and here is the logic: > > xpdf's rendering code is itself essentially an older version of > poppler. I doubt the poppler developers have intent

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

* Rogério Brito , 2010-06-03, 16:00: I have been keeping in touch with Michael about such smaller version of xpdf and, in fact, I started a xpdf-poppler project, Count me as one who won't use such a bastardized version of xpdf. Thank you very much for your warm reception. :-) Don't get me w

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:56:00 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:29:07AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > In terms of xpdf performance, can those concerned please try files that > > they consider big with the poppler-ized version and compare that to the > > original xpdf

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi Rogério, On Do, 03 Jun 2010, Rogério Brito wrote: > http://rb.doesntexist.org/blog/2010/05/27/please-let-me-zoom-my-documents/ I read that, and might I suggest ps_view? (also pdf viewer). It is installed by default on TeX Live on Windows, and it is available form source forege. It is *MINIMAL

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On 06/04/2010 01:36 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Thanks for spotting this! I've just uploaded xpdf with a versioned > depenedency on libpoppler-dev: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf Just for the record, it seems that things will break again with poppler 0.13.x. At least, it do

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:29:07AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > In terms of xpdf performance, can those concerned please try files that > they consider big with the poppler-ized version and compare that to the > original xpdf so we can actually quantify the impact (if there even is > one). Spec

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Le Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 02:47:27PM -0300, Rogério Brito a écrit : > > Just as a quick question, if you use xpdf with the poppler backend, do > you have poppler-data installed? It contains the character mappings > established by adobe for fonts... Thanks, Rogério for the helpful answer. I was ver

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:29:07 -0400 Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > > > Le Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 11:33:21AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit : > > > > > > The reason of my question is that there are several pdf viewers in the > > > repository bas

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:28:27 +0200 gregor herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:12 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > > $ dget -u http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf/xpdf_3.02-3.dsc > > $ cd xpdf-3.02 > > $ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc > [..] > > dpkg-buildpackage: fai

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 11:33:21AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit : > > > > The reason of my question is that there are several pdf viewers in the > > repository based on poppler. One of them is evince which often crashes > > on large

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 02:43:38PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote: > Hi, there. > > On Jun 03 2010, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > > This change is for sure quite significant. BTW, do you know if the > > internal code in xpdf is equivalent feature wise to poppler? I know > > that poppler was a spin-off

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi, Jakub. On Jun 03 2010, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Rogério Brito , 2010-06-03, 14:43: > >I have been keeping in touch with Michael about such smaller > >version of xpdf and, in fact, I started a xpdf-poppler project, > > Count me as one who won't use such a bastardized version of xpdf. Thank you v

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

* Rogério Brito , 2010-06-03, 14:43: This change is for sure quite significant. BTW, do you know if the internal code in xpdf is equivalent feature wise to poppler? I know that poppler was a spin-off of the rendering code of xpdf. Do you know how much they deviate one from another? I have bee

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Dear Charles, On Jun 03 2010, Charles Plessy wrote: > I share the same worries: evince still does not manage to pick up japanese > fonts for some documents, while currently xpdf does. However, with the 3.02-3 > update that you propose, it can not anymore… Just as a quick question, if you use xpdf

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Hi, there. On Jun 03 2010, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > This change is for sure quite significant. BTW, do you know if the > internal code in xpdf is equivalent feature wise to poppler? I know > that poppler was a spin-off of the rendering code of xpdf. Do you know > how much they deviate one from

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:12 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > $ dget -u http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf/xpdf_3.02-3.dsc > $ cd xpdf-3.02 > $ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc [..] > dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 > > $ apt-cache polic

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Le Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 11:33:21AM +0400, Stanislav Maslovski a écrit : > > The reason of my question is that there are several pdf viewers in the > repository based on poppler. One of them is evince which often crashes > on large pdf files. In these cases xpdf was an > old-and-slow-but-always-wor

Re: RFS: xpdf (updated package)

Here is what I get: $ dget -u http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpdf/xpdf_3.02-3.dsc $ cd xpdf-3.02 $ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc ... xpdf/config.h:36:1: warning: "xpdfCopyrightAmp" redefined In file included from xpdf/GlobalParams.cc:9: /usr/include/poppler/poppler-config.h:72

  1   2   >