On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 17:47 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Svante Signell writes ("Re: xpdf removed from testing?"):
> > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 16:59 +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > That's 7 entirely sufficient reasons and one problem that arguably makes
> > > fixing the other seven harder. So 7.5 reasons to remove it from testing.
> >
> > OK; OK, I understand completely. As a follow-up: according to popcon
> > there are about 10 000 installations of that package. Any
> > interest/chance that patches will help re-introduce this package, or is
> > it just a waste of effort? What is the opinion of the maintainers?
>
> If the existing maintainer doesn't have the effort to stop the package
> being removed from testing then clearly they need help.
Noted, action taken!
> If you provide patches, with a view to xpdf staying in the archive,
> you should probably be prepared for the maintainer to "offer" you the
> package :-).
I might be interested to continue working on this package, as a start
with the maintainers blessing, see below.
> I would love to help but my I'm out of the special waterproof tuits
> required for swamp-draining. Good luck.
Thanks!
Yay, xpdf builds again (and prints) :-)
I cleaned out the duplicated code between xpdf and poppler (which is a
continuation of xpdf becoming a PDF rendering library). Some more
cleaning is still needed, to actually remove all irrelevant code (and
update relevant code). Is it possible to create a new code base from my
changes and the many patches?
The patched version of xpdf has been tested with both libpoppler19
(0.18.4-10) and libpoppler37 (0.22.5-3). libfontconfig version is
2.11.0-2.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1389820167.9619.36.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
