Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:00:53PM +0100, Isaac Clerencia wrote: >> On Monday, 9 January 2006 15:03, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >> > Unfortunately kpdf upstream seems quite reluctant to switch to poppler, see >> > http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119455. I don't know the status of >> > koffice. >> Hi. >> >> From an hour ago: >> #kpdf: >> 16:22 < isaac> uhm, refresh my memory >> 16:22 < isaac> will kpdf ever use poppler? >> 16:22 < isaac> will it be replaced by okular? >> 16:24 < tsdgeos> maybe >> 16:24 < tsdgeos> maybe >> 16:24 < Niedakh> well if poppler's development process becomes more open > > Also from that KDE bug report: > >> It would be nice to see that KDE and GNOME developers really could work >> together. ;-) > > It would be even better to see the poppler people working with Xpdf's > upstream. It's good that not all these packages will have statically-linked > copies of xpdf code now. It would be even better if poppler wasn't a > fork of Xpdf though.
Right; but from my reading of the poppler archives I understood that xpdf was not willing to accept patches by the various derivative projects, and therefore a fork was decided to be necessary for them to progress. Doing this in form of a library is for sure a good move. > Already poppler is behind on a lot of bug fixes from Xpdf 3.01. > I imagine most have been merged by now, but there's a lot of duplicate > effort involved. The poppler people still struggle with their infrastructure, see http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/poppler/2006-January/001411.html and http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/poppler/2006-January/001418.html Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
