Ben Young wrote:
> Yeah... but it was said in a quite arrogant manner. Matthew Palmer said
> things neatly in his first email (which I think everybody understood
> correctly!), then I didn't quite like the tone of his second one. Just
Yeah, the second one was a little over the top. How many previ
Ben Young wrote:
> Yeah... but it was said in a quite arrogant manner. Matthew Palmer said
> things neatly in his first email (which I think everybody understood
> correctly!), then I didn't quite like the tone of his second one. Just
Yeah, the second one was a little over the top. How many previ
--- Esteban Manchado Velázquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:43:26PM -0800, Ben Young
> wrote:
> > On 03/03/04, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > Make that at least two. And I haven't exactly
> seen
> > a huge clamour of people
> > > rushing to your defence in any coheren
--- Esteban Manchado Velázquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:43:26PM -0800, Ben Young
> wrote:
> > On 03/03/04, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > Make that at least two. And I haven't exactly
> seen
> > a huge clamour of people
> > > rushing to your defence in any coheren
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:43:26PM -0800, Ben Young wrote:
> On 03/03/04, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > Make that at least two. And I haven't exactly seen
> a huge clamour of people
> > rushing to your defence in any coherent fashion.
> > It's not a bad concept,
> >
> > You are free to take your
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:43:26PM -0800, Ben Young wrote:
> On 03/03/04, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > Make that at least two. And I haven't exactly seen
> a huge clamour of people
> > rushing to your defence in any coherent fashion.
> > It's not a bad concept,
> >
> > You are free to take your
r a one liner.
> ok, so we know the opinion of Thomas, what does the rest of you think?
> Should it go into gs-common and the like?
yes.
> Or is it package-able on its own?
well.. a 1 line shell-script doesn't require an own package IMO
even i wouldn't come up with the gs-co
r a one liner.
> ok, so we know the opinion of Thomas, what does the rest of you think?
> Should it go into gs-common and the like?
yes.
> Or is it package-able on its own?
well.. a 1 line shell-script doesn't require an own package IMO
even i wouldn't come up with the gs-co
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
pdftk - A useful tool for manipulating PDF documents
Totally right, but:
depends:
libgcj4 (>= 1:3.3.2-1)
Java runtime library for use with gcj
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:33:39AM +0100, Philipp Gortan wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >The proper place for the script (after doing things right) is
> >ghostscript upstream. Take a look at pdf2ps and try to get your program
> >next to that. There's no reason to produce packages for a one line
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
pdftk - A useful tool for manipulating PDF documents
Totally right, but:
depends:
libgcj4 (>= 1:3.3.2-1)
Java runtime library for use with gcj
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:33:39AM +0100, Philipp Gortan wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >The proper place for the script (after doing things right) is
> >ghostscript upstream. Take a look at pdf2ps and try to get your program
> >next to that. There's no reason to produce packages for a one line
Philipp Gortan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the question is: If I am a non-professional user and i wanted
> to merge a bunch of pdf files, would I know what to look for in
> dselect?
killer ~ % apt-cache search merge pdf
pdftk - A useful tool for manipulating PDF documents
--
* Sufficie
> > download the whole package of 32mb of a larger
> unknown
> > program with another weird name just to get that
> > script running.
>
> While I totally agree with you, this point doesn't
> work here as pdfmerge
> is dependent on gs-common, so apt will fetch
just to get that
script running.
While I totally agree with you, this point doesn't work here as pdfmerge
is dependent on gs-common, so apt will fetch it for you anyhow...
I think the question is: If I am a non-professional user and i wanted to
merge a bunch of pdf files, would I know wh
w Palmer wrote:
> >Eh? Where has someone said "we do not want pdfmerge in Debian"? There have
> >been queries about your implementation, and about your intentions to produce
> >a separate package for it, and a (quite valid) suggestion to submit it to GS
> >upstream.
end it will
benefit us all.
If the RH community is already doing an "pt-get
install pdfmerge" to get the program in and running.
Why not us?
>
> But then we end up with the redhat madness where
> it's hard to find a
> particular program because it has been lumped in
> with
Philipp Gortan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the question is: If I am a non-professional user and i wanted
> to merge a bunch of pdf files, would I know what to look for in
> dselect?
killer ~ % apt-cache search merge pdf
pdftk - A useful tool for manipulating PDF documents
--
* Sufficie
> > download the whole package of 32mb of a larger
> unknown
> > program with another weird name just to get that
> > script running.
>
> While I totally agree with you, this point doesn't
> work here as pdfmerge
> is dependent on gs-common, so apt will fetch
w Palmer wrote:
> >Eh? Where has someone said "we do not want pdfmerge in Debian"? There have
> >been queries about your implementation, and about your intentions to produce
> >a separate package for it, and a (quite valid) suggestion to submit it to GS
> >upstream.
to get that
script running.
While I totally agree with you, this point doesn't work here as pdfmerge
is dependent on gs-common, so apt will fetch it for you anyhow...
I think the question is: If I am a non-professional user and i wanted to
merge a bunch of pdf files, would I know what to
p is a one-liner. And if we all went to Perl, we
could have perl regular expressions instead of the horrible POSIX ones.
I wouldn't bet on it if I were you. This script is in the ATrpms
repository <http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/> and many people from
RH/Fedora world are alread
end it will
benefit us all.
If the RH community is already doing an "pt-get
install pdfmerge" to get the program in and running.
Why not us?
>
> But then we end up with the redhat madness where
> it's hard to find a
> particular program because it has been lumped in
> with
Common guys I think you're being harsh w/ the poor
lad. He wrote something that he wants to share and
instead of supporting him, you're trying to nail him
down on the list.
I like and use pdfmerge daily and I would want to see
it in Debian too. I wasn't aware of the one liner. :-(
Wh
t your program
> > >next to that. There's no reason to produce packages for a one liner.
> >
> > ok, so we know the opinion of Thomas, what does the rest of you think?
> > Should it go into gs-common and the like?
> > Or is it package-able on its own?
>
>
iner. And if we all went to Perl, we
could have perl regular expressions instead of the horrible POSIX ones.
I wouldn't bet on it if I were you. This script is in the ATrpms
repository <http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/> and many people from
RH/Fedora world are already doing an
apt
> can list many, so why don't you start taking them off.
Find 'em, give us one line equivalents, and I, personally, will be happy to
encourage the maintainers to merge their scripts into appropriate packages.
> > No. Those people would prefer to have pdfmerge without apt-get in
Common guys I think you're being harsh w/ the poor
lad. He wrote something that he wants to share and
instead of supporting him, you're trying to nail him
down on the list.
I like and use pdfmerge daily and I would want to see
it in Debian too. I wasn't aware of the one liner. :-(
Wh
On 02/03/04, at 15:31 +0100, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK. Let's assume that I'm convinced that a pdfmerge script was useful.
Good start :-)
> There's no reason to produce packages for a one liner.
> As for your "another way of doing
er.
>
> ok, so we know the opinion of Thomas, what does the rest of you think?
> Should it go into gs-common and the like?
> Or is it package-able on its own?
If, as I've discerned from the discussions going on here, pdfmerge is a
trivial script which does one small thing, it sho
t your program
> > >next to that. There's no reason to produce packages for a one liner.
> >
> > ok, so we know the opinion of Thomas, what does the rest of you think?
> > Should it go into gs-common and the like?
> > Or is it package-able on its own?
>
>
> can list many, so why don't you start taking them off.
Find 'em, give us one line equivalents, and I, personally, will be happy to
encourage the maintainers to merge their scripts into appropriate packages.
> > No. Those people would prefer to have pdfmerge without apt-get in
On 02/03/04, at 15:31 +0100, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK. Let's assume that I'm convinced that a pdfmerge script was useful.
Good start :-)
> There's no reason to produce packages for a one liner.
> As for your "another way of doing
er.
>
> ok, so we know the opinion of Thomas, what does the rest of you think?
> Should it go into gs-common and the like?
> Or is it package-able on its own?
If, as I've discerned from the discussions going on here, pdfmerge is a
trivial script which does one small thing, it sho
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
The proper place for the script (after doing things right) is
ghostscript upstream. Take a look at pdf2ps and try to get your program
next to that. There's no reason to produce packages for a one liner.
Hi mentors,
ok, so we know the opinion of Thomas, what does the res
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
The proper place for the script (after doing things right) is
ghostscript upstream. Take a look at pdf2ps and try to get your program
next to that. There's no reason to produce packages for a one liner.
Hi mentors,
ok, so we know the opinion of Thomas, what does the rest of
.]
OK. Let's assume that I'm convinced that a pdfmerge script was useful.
> It is small things that make up big things. :-p This small script has
> entered several big projects, both GPL and non-GPL. Besides like Philipp
> said, it's another way of doing things.
The proper place fo
.]
OK. Let's assume that I'm convinced that a pdfmerge script was useful.
> It is small things that make up big things. :-p This small script has
> entered several big projects, both GPL and non-GPL. Besides like Philipp
> said, it's another way of doing things.
The proper place fo
I'm in a mentor's list and here, most people
would say "I knew it... pfff so trivial". But I can assure you that many
common/layman people do not know this and prefer to download my script and
achieve their results fast rather than reading the manpage of ghostview.
Manu peopl
Hi Thomas, hi mentors,
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
- The script randomly overwrites files in the CWD.
issue fixed, pdfmerge now uses File::Temp for secure creation...
Version 1.0-5 as usual at
<http://mr.technikum-wien.at/~mephinet/pdfmerge/>
Interested, anyone? :-)
Regards,
Philipp
I'm in a mentor's list and here, most people
would say "I knew it... pfff so trivial". But I can assure you that many
common/layman people do not know this and prefer to download my script and
achieve their results fast rather than reading the manpage of ghostview.
Manu peopl
hat is the difference?
You're right that there are different ways to achieve the goal. Didn't
knew that was a bad idea...
On a second set of documents, both barfed on the input pdf...
Sure, pdfmerge can't do what ghostscript can't do...
- The script randomly overwrites files in
Hi Thomas, hi mentors,
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
- The script randomly overwrites files in the CWD.
issue fixed, pdfmerge now uses File::Temp for secure creation...
Version 1.0-5 as usual at
<http://mr.technikum-wien.at/~mephinet/pdfmerge/>
Interested, anyone? :-)
Regards,
Philipp Gortan
-
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:
- p
difference?
You're right that there are different ways to achieve the goal. Didn't
knew that was a bad idea...
On a second set of documents, both barfed on the input pdf...
Sure, pdfmerge can't do what ghostscript can't do...
- The script randomly overwrites files in the C
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:
- p
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:39:57PM +0100, Philipp Gortan wrote:
> Should the perl script be in the "i386" architecture, or the "any"?
Have a quick look at some other perl scripts, and see what they've got. And
read the Debian Perl Policy, I would imagine it'd have some words of wisdom.
- Matt
n the "i386" architecture, or the "any"?
the new files are up again at
http://mr.technikum-wien.at/~mephinet/pdfmerge/
thanks, cu
Philipp
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:39:57PM +0100, Philipp Gortan wrote:
> Should the perl script be in the "i386" architecture, or the "any"?
Have a quick look at some other perl scripts, and see what they've got. And
read the Debian Perl Policy, I would imagine it'd have some words of wisdom.
- Matt
n the "i386" architecture, or the "any"?
the new files are up again at
http://mr.technikum-wien.at/~mephinet/pdfmerge/
thanks, cu
Philipp
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Philipp Gortan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi mentors,
>
> I packaged pdfmerge and would be happy to get it included into the
> Debian distribution.
> pdfmerge is a simple perl script used to merge multiple PDF files into a
> single output file, using ghostscript
Philipp Gortan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi mentors,
>
> I packaged pdfmerge and would be happy to get it included into the
> Debian distribution.
> pdfmerge is a simple perl script used to merge multiple PDF files into a
> single output file, using ghostscript
Hi mentors,
I packaged pdfmerge and would be happy to get it included into the
Debian distribution.
pdfmerge is a simple perl script used to merge multiple PDF files into a
single output file, using ghostscript.
program: pdfmerge
version: 1.0
homepage: http://pdfmerge4unix.sf.net/
Author
Hi mentors,
I packaged pdfmerge and would be happy to get it included into the
Debian distribution.
pdfmerge is a simple perl script used to merge multiple PDF files into a
single output file, using ghostscript.
program: pdfmerge
version: 1.0
homepage: http://pdfmerge4unix.sf.net/
Author
54 matches
Mail list logo
