On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I don't see them as sufficiently different to warrant it. The intention is that they are the same, I think (unless poppler-utils is adding features not found in xpdf-utils). Probably the only difference then is bugs, which should be reported.
If this is the only difference, there shouldn't be two packages!
That's not a common scenario,
If the only difference between these packages is bugs, then surely trying them alternately to work around a bug is exactly a common scenario!
I think "apt-get install poppler-utils" and "apt-get install xpdf-utils" is easier than driving update-alternatives.
It's not easier: if one is disconnected one has to ensure that both packages are cached, or downloaded manually; if one is connected one has to wait. In any case, it's a single command to change the alternatives, just as to install one package or the other.
In summary, I don't understand the present situation. It seems that either the two packages only differ by bugs, in which case having them both is somewhere between silly, odd and annoying, or they are different, in which case making them conflict is inconvenient. Have you discussed this with the poppler-utils maintainer?
-- http://rrt.sc3d.org/ | impeccable, a. not liable to detection (Bierce) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
