Landry Breuil wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:10:26PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
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.
That was the main idea, needing X only for xpdf binary, and being also able
to install xpdf-utils on systems without X sets.. i can think of a
webapp that converts pdfs to ps/txt installed on a webserver without X sets.
And yes, users still complains and don't understand why they haveto install
X sets on their headless servers, even if it's explained in the faq.
But as bernd said, i dunno if it's worth the effort adding complicated cruft
to this port.
we stated many times that for some ports you just need X installed. So
it is no problem.
Landry
