Hi Johannes, On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 11:16:33PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Johannes Schauer (2015-03-18 21:13:51) > > Quoting David Prévot (2015-03-18 21:05:11) > > > Even better: you may use directly /usr/share/pdf.js/compatibility.js as > > > shipped in pdf.js-common (>= 1.0.1149) instead of depending on libjs-pdf. > > > > I'll make the change as soon as Jessie is released :) > > I just uploaded the new pdf2htmlex upstream version to unstable but did not > include the symlink change because pdf.js-common (>= 1.0.1149) seems to still > be in experimental only.
I’ve uploaded 1.1.1+dfsg-2 to Sid now. > I will make the change once pdf.js-common (>= 1.0.1149) appears in unstable. That should happen in a few minutes ;). > What is the advantage/reason of depending on compatibility.js in pdf.js-common > instead of the one in libjs-pdf? pdf.js-common just ship the common files shared by libjs-pdf and xul-ext-pdf.js (and soon, pdf2htmlex too). libjs-pdf only ships a symlink to the actual file (well, two actually, but I’ll get rid of the extra one once this bug is fixed ;). Since libjs-pdf is about as big as pdf.js-common (and depend on it), using pdf.js-common directly will save (your users) one package, almost 1MB to download, and almost 3MB on disk for each installation. Symlinking to a symlink (that is already symlinking to a symlink) may not be the most effective thing anyway. Regards David
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
