Johan Henriksson wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote: >> >>> On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> #2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches. >>>> >>>> Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune? >>>> >>> I see no reason to deviate from upstream's choices here, no matter how >>> trivial >>> the patches are. >>> >>> Here is no bug, so here is nothing to fix. >>> >>> There is a design decision you don't like, well. Learn to live with it. >>> >>> If upstream changes, we will follow, though. >>> Just because we *can* patch things does not mean we should. >>> >>> And I consider this debate closed, and please find a different battle field >>> that >>> doesn't involve me for fighting DRM. >>> >> Note that consistency between the pdf readers within the distro is >> worth keeping the debate open. >> > if we wanted consistency then we would stick to a single PDF reader and > throw out the rest. if they all work the same then what's the point in > maintaining all of them?
Ahh, that is the blessing/curse of running Free Software/Linux. It is great/terrible that you have such choice/duplication. You get to find/stumble upon the program that does exactly/nothing what you want. In any case, two of the three, at least (xpdf and evince) have a similar core. It would be something if all three could standardize on poppler, eh? -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
