Marc Balmer [2008-01-15, 15:10:26]: > Landry Breuil wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 03:32:52PM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: >>> On 11/14 08:56, Landry Breuil wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:38:38PM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: >>>>> This diff adds a no_x11 flavor to textproc/xpdf. This is necessary if >>>>> you want to use the pdftotext program without X being installed. This >>>>> patch is the same is one sent last week, update to -current for the >>>>> recent security patch to xpdf. >>>>> >>>>> Tested on i386. Please test and commit. >>>> We (bernd and i) had a look at your previous patch, and it seems to make >>>> more sense to have a multi-packages with xpdf-main and xpdf-utils, the >>>> latter >>>> containing what corresponds to your no_x11 flavor. >>>> An updated diff should appear soon, there is only a little issue about >>>> upgrading from xpdf to xpdf-main+xpdf-utils which leads to conflicts. >>> I agree, multi-packages make more sense. I'm not sure if you had time >>> to work on a diff, so I prepared one. It is attached. Hopefully we can >>> work out the upgrade conflicts. >> >> Ah, yes, bernd@ sent me a diff a while ago about this one, with a >> @pkgpath marker to solve the update/conflicts. It also moves pdftops to >> -main package, i'm not sure if it's needed.. and -main doesn't >> run_depends on -utils. >> >> xpdf users, what do you think about it ? Is it worth making this >> MULTI_PACKAGES ? Attached diff needs comments and feedback. > > I'd prefer a single package. i.e. users must have X11 installed.
I use both xpdf and pdftotext, and would also like to see them stay in one package...
