On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:24:31 +0200 Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Norbert Preining <prein...@logic.at>, 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 to the embedded xpdf code > >for Debian texlive packages, just to get rid of that stupid problems: > >"new poppler hits unstable, changes API at random, so texlive FTBFS" > > Worse still, poppler also break ABI without bumping SONAME[1]. > The problem is that interfaces used by software like texlive, cups, > inkscape or pdf2djvu are considered private by poppler developers[2].
That is may be true upstream, but according to [2] and past experience the debian maintainers do bump the soname on ABI breakage. So within debian, this isn't really a problem. > >I am not sure if basing anything new on poppler is actually a good > >idea. > > No, it's not; poppler/xpdf codebase is just *horrible*. > > [1] > http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/poppler/0.12.4-1/01_revert_abi_change.patch > [2] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7054 A single patch reverting an ABI change doesn't really provide a whole lot of evidence for your dramatic conclusions. And like I said, debian already has a solution for upstream's bad behavior. It isn't really a big deal. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100606123614.d43f5c1a.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
