David McKay wrote: > > On 18/07/11 20:50, Andy Brown wrote: >> Mathias Bauer wrote: >>> On 18.07.2011 20:21, Mathias Bauer wrote: >>> >>>>> 1) xpdf (GPL'd) is a run dependency, this is linux/unix >>>>> specific. PDFBox may be a replacement. >>>> This component is used for the pdf import extension, not for OOo >>>> itself. >>>> >>>> The pdf import extension is not built by default, there is a configure >>>> switch to enable it in the build. In that case xpdf would be >>>> required. I >>>> think that this already fulfils the legal requirements that building >>>> lgpl code must be "opt-in". So as far as I can see, this is not a >>>> "to do". >>> Giving it one more thought: it would be still a to do if we wanted to >>> have a pdf import extension released by Apache. So perhaps a to do with >>> minor priority. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mathias >> If we do include the pdf import extension I would like to see it >> rewritten to do a better job of importing. I have seen to many post in >> the forums about the way that it works. My suggestion would be to drop >> it completely. >> >> Andy >> > A lot of the issues I see on the forum regarding the PDF extension are > to do with expectation. People seem to think this extension is going to > give them a full-blown PDF editor with the capabilities of the Adobe > tools. When they discover it is for tiny corrections and typo fixes they > feel let down. That's not to say there aren't any bugs in it, there may > well be. But I don;t think the PDF extension was positioned or described > sufficiently to provide users with the correct expectations. > > Dave.
I agree with you that it is the expectations that cause the real problem. For me it is a waste as it does not do as most people expect. An OCR import would be a better option, if we can find one. Andy
