On 10/14/20 11:43 AM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:11:13AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
On 10/12/20 10:15 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 09:41:37PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev
wrote:
They seem to be using system JBIG2DEC, JPEGXR, and GUMBO which we do not
have. The package certainly doesn't document user.make. I see it now for
the first time. The options -DJBIG_NO_MEMENTO -DTOFU -DTOFU_CJK are
mysterious but appear to have soemthing to do with noto fonts.
I can use that to do some tests, but I don't think it builds a shared
library. Maybe we don't need a library though.
First, can I offer my thanks to both you and Pierre for your work on
this. But I wonder if we really need the shared library. People
know that I like shared libs, at least when they are properly
versioned, but I'm happy to build static libs which are only used
within the same package.
For mupdf itself we install multiple variants, and one or two other
programs. I guess that those link to the shared lib and therefore
the size of each program is reduced. I have a vague recollection
that in the past something external might have been able to use
mupdf (/me looks ...) : zathura (see Arch - the mupdf dep is
optional).
As a heretical "run it up a pole and see who salutes it" option,
maybe we could build the static lib and only install the useful
progs (without headers or libraries) ? That begs the question, of
course, "do we need all the variants of mupdf ?". Just a thought.
We could do the static libraries, but I think we've got the shared
version working now.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
