Sorry for the top-post. As it happens, I am upstream. I have rewritten the pargraph as follows. I think this is clearer. What do you think? If you like it, I'll close this. My fix is here: https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf/pull/1187
--- It is not generally practical to remove objects from QDF files without messing up object numbering, but if you remove all indirect references to an object (without removing the object itself), this will leave the object unreferenced. Then you can run qpdf on the file (after running :command:`fix-qdf`), and qpdf will omit the now-orphaned object. --- On Sun, Apr 7, 2024, at 5:04 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Jay Berkenbilt dixit: > > >Can you tell me where in the docs it says what you're describing? > >Here's a direct quote from the current qpdf documentation: > > > >It is not generally practical to remove objects from QDF files without > >messing up object numbering, but if you remove all references to an > >object, you can run qpdf on the file (after running fix-qdf), and qpdf > >will omit the now-orphaned object. > > Yes, I meant that. At least two people assumed that “remove all > references” includes the object itself, but now that you point it > out, it likely doesn’t, but we are no native speakers, so I don’t > know which of the two interpretations is more likely to them or > if even both are possible. > > Maybe, if you have good connections to upstream, suggest to them > to add “(but not the object itself)” to behind “all references to > an object”, but the bug can then be closed. > > Thanks for looking into it, > //mirabilos > -- > Solange man keine schmutzigen Tricks macht, und ich meine *wirklich* > schmutzige Tricks, wie bei einer doppelt verketteten Liste beide > Pointer XORen und in nur einem Word speichern, funktioniert Boehm ganz > hervorragend. -- Andreas Bogk über boehm-gc in d.a.s.r >
