Bug 1095455

Hello Pablo,

The last time this was tried, we could not install both pdf plugins (no runtime selector), plus the poppler-based plugin had more features.
I'll have to revisit this. 

Thanks for the heads-up.
François

François,

as far as I know, both plugins cannot be simultaneously installed.

BTW, I have just noticed (searching for info about runtime selector) that "mupdf has to be built with -fPIC before it can be linked successfully to our plugin".

Just in case it helps,

Pablo

François,

#1109589 shows that mupdf is built with -fPIC in rawhide.

Would it be possible that you provide zathura-pdf-mupdf in rawhide?

Many thanks for your help,


Pablo

Is zathura-pdf-poppler problematic in your use case? Why do you need zathura-pdf-mupdf?

(In reply to François Cami from comment #4)
> Is zathura-pdf-poppler problematic in your use case? Why do you need
> zathura-pdf-mupdf?

I have a netbook with less resources than a standard computer. mupdf requires less resources than poppler. I think that it would be worth providing also zathura-pdf-mupdf in Fedora.

As you pointed before, this is incompatible with zathura-pdf-poppler. But once this is marked in the spec file, I think the user should able to decide whether poppler or mupdf fits better her needs.

Many thanks for your help,


Pablo

François,

I think that zathura-pdf-mupdf is an interesting software so that the user can choose what fits best.

Sorry, but I cannot understand what is the problem with packaging zathura-pdf-mupdf.

Many thanks for your help,


Pablo

I never said packaging zathura-pdf-mupdf was a problem, but I have no time to do it now.

(In reply to François Cami from comment #7)
> I never said packaging zathura-pdf-mupdf was a problem, but I have no time
> to do it now.

Sorry, François, I simply got it wrong.

Well, we could either make these two plugins conflict with each other or implement alternatives here, since it's just about the %{_libdir}/zathura/pdf.so file, I think.

The former would be more simple but the latter probably generally preferred.

What approach did you have in mind, François?

I'd vote for the alternatives approach, since it could probably be made to work with zathura-plugins-all. But frankly, anything that works.

Okay.  I'll do it if you're still busy.

I appreciate that, thank you Petr.

The plugin requires a mupdf library not available in Fedora at the moment.

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle.
Changing version to '22'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22

This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #13)
> The plugin requires a mupdf library not available in Fedora at the moment.

Hi Petr,

would it be available if mupdf-1.7 is packaged?

Many thanks for your help,

Pablo

Hi Pablo,

this isn't about mupdf version, it's about mupdf packaging in Fedora.  The package just doesn't install the files we need.  See #1122539.

(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #17)
> Hi Pablo,
> 
> this isn't about mupdf version, it's about mupdf packaging in Fedora.  The
> package just doesn't install the files we need.  See #1122539.

Many thanks for your reply, Petr.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to provide mujs as an independent package (from mupdf)?

I know next to nothing about mupdf and I don't care whether it's installed by mupdf or a mupdf subpackage, if that's what you're asking about :)

That's up to its maintainer, if he ever wakes up.

FYI: unresponsive maintainer policy started on Fedora's devel list.

I've submitted mujs (a standalone package) for package review, see bug #1219422.

zathura-pdf-mupdf submitted for review, bug #1230149.

The package is available in Rawhide.  Closing.