Hi,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Klemens Nanni:
>
> > > Should xpdf 3 be kept around?
> >
> > Compared to mupdf, though, xpdf 3 has this nice chapter view and is
> > great for navigating specifications and such.
>
> FWIW, FreeBSD has kept an xpdf3 port around.
>
> I also use xpdf3 as my primary PDF viewer/printer and I'm not happy
> with the situation.
I'd like if xpdf3 could be kept for those preferring it. IIRC, xpdf4 not
only wasn't incapable of printing (which was the reason I backed it
out), but also was much slower then xpdf3.
> > I wouldn't mind keeping a copy of old xpdf if it benefits users and
> > doesn't turn into an unmaintained port which will eventually lack
> > critical fixes or so.
>
> Unfortunately that is already the case as upstream has moved on to
> the Qt version.
The best solution for something like xpdf3 would be to largely
rewrite it to use poppler instead of its own pdf engine -- I know,
our poppler is outdated, too, because of lack of time on my side
to fix all the breakage in depending ports (since about one year
ago).
> Back in late 2021, there was a kerfuffle about an Apple security
> vulnerability in some crufty JBIG2 code. Security analyses at the
> time mentioned that the vulnerable code had come from xpdf, but it
> took about a year for a fix to trickle back to xpdf3. Although,
> it had taken like half a year for a new xpdf4 release, too.
Upstream often was a little bit slow ;-)
Ciao,
Kil
