On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:10:26PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: > Landry Breuil wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 03:32:52PM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: > >>On 11/14 08:56, Landry Breuil wrote: > >>>On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:38:38PM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: > >>>>This diff adds a no_x11 flavor to textproc/xpdf. This is necessary if > >>>>you want to use the pdftotext program without X being installed. This > >>>>patch is the same is one sent last week, update to -current for the > >>>>recent security patch to xpdf. > >>>> > >>>>Tested on i386. Please test and commit. > >>>We (bernd and i) had a look at your previous patch, and it seems to make > >>>more sense to have a multi-packages with xpdf-main and xpdf-utils, the > >>>latter > >>>containing what corresponds to your no_x11 flavor. > >>>An updated diff should appear soon, there is only a little issue about > >>>upgrading from xpdf to xpdf-main+xpdf-utils which leads to conflicts. > >>I agree, multi-packages make more sense. I'm not sure if you had time > >>to work on a diff, so I prepared one. It is attached. Hopefully we can > >>work out the upgrade conflicts. > > > >Ah, yes, bernd@ sent me a diff a while ago about this one, with a > >@pkgpath marker to solve the update/conflicts. It also moves pdftops to > >-main package, i'm not sure if it's needed.. and -main doesn't > >run_depends on -utils. > > > >xpdf users, what do you think about it ? Is it worth making this > >MULTI_PACKAGES ? Attached diff needs comments and feedback. > > I'd prefer a single package. i.e. users must have X11 installed.
That was the main idea, needing X only for xpdf binary, and being also able to install xpdf-utils on systems without X sets.. i can think of a webapp that converts pdfs to ps/txt installed on a webserver without X sets. And yes, users still complains and don't understand why they haveto install X sets on their headless servers, even if it's explained in the faq. But as bernd said, i dunno if it's worth the effort adding complicated cruft to this port. Landry
