On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:21:18PM +0100, Steven Mestdagh wrote: > 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...
Ok, so i suppose it'll stay like that... the patch is still available for people really wanting this. Landry
