On 10/19/10 8:48 AM, David Evans wrote: > On 10/19/10 8:31 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:24, David Evans wrote: >>> On 10/19/10 8:14 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>>> Why don't we delete that variant and make the xpdf port always do that? >>>> >>> I agree but there is a political history behind this. >>> >>> Xpdf was first and poppler is an off-shoot of the original xpdf code written >>> as a library to allow other projects to use it. >>> >>> The two have diverged some-what and it has only been relatively recently >>> that >>> xpdf was modified to allow linking to poppler rather than use its own code. >>> >>> Xpdf web site still doesn't mention poppler although it is the variant >>> that is >>> currently being maintained (xpdf hasn't had a change in a year and then only >>> minor). >>> >>> But the solution that you propose would be the one that works. >>> >>> Perhaps just making the +with_poppler variant a default variant would >>> fix the >>> problem and allow xpdf purists to use xpdf without poppler (if they >>> really never >>> want to use poppler). >> If the variant is kept, I would want it renamed to just "+poppler" (we do >> not name variants with "with_" or "without_" prefixes in MacPorts). >> >> Also if the variant is kept my addition of the conflicts keywords needs to >> be fixed to only apply the conflict if it's actually relevant. >> >> > Well, saying it that way sounds a bit too contrived to me so I would > vote to just make the poppler dependency > the default behavior without any variant. > > _______________________________________________ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users > Conflict between xpdf and poppler resolved in r72519, r72520 as suggested by Ryan. Conflicts statements removed.
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
