----- Forwarded message from Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
From: Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org> Subject: Re: RFS: pdfmerge Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:45:11 +0100 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: beamNet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig85D809567F76582ECF800E98" Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Resent-From: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/17271 Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 01:45:34 -0600 (CST) Philipp Gortan wrote: > I filed an ITP bug: http://bugs.debian.org/235659 > (didn't cc to debian-devel though, wrong header section) Which is bad, because I'm sure the package will raise the "why does every badly written, trivial script need to be included in Debian?" question. Just two things: - picking two random pdf files, I don't see the difference between using the script (why does it need autotools for a trivial perl script?) and using gs -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile=merged.pdf *.pdf -c quit what is the difference? If there isn't a significant difference, it the script is a bad way of shortening a command line. On a second set of documents, both barfed on the input pdf... - The script randomly overwrites files in the CWD. I will not comment on packaging issues. I'm sorry, but I conclude that IMO this package is not suitable for inclusion to Debian. Regards Thomas -- Thomas Viehmann, <http://beamnet.de/tv/> ----- End forwarded message ----- -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
