Re: The road to dropping xdvik
On 28 January 2010 10:38, Richard Zidlicky r...@linux-m68k.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:08:25PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote: 2010/1/27 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com: I suspect a lot of our users will be similarly annoyed. This is one of those kinds of tools that just works and so people stick with it. Well.. perhaps. OTOH people seem to have happily migrated from xpdf to evince over time (or at least that's my perception). not happy with evince, however okular works nicely. The speed difference to xdvi is substantial. How many people actually use the japanese support of xdvi if thats the main problem? I suspect the japanese support is reasonably widely used. I wouldn't say it's the main problem, just one of many problems associated with the ageing bitrotting codebase. However, it seems we're not ready to dump it at this time, so I'll continue maintaining the package for the time being. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
The road to dropping xdvik
Dear All, We currently ship xdvik as a package separate to texlive (for a variety of reasons). Looking forward to when we ship texlive-2009, it'll be built as part of the texlive package build once more. However, even better would be to drop it entirely, for the following reasons: 1) It's a legacy piece of software which is barely maintained - a couple of times a year releases are made with small bugfixes, but there's no actual development 2) We patch it heavily to bodge in japanese support using a separate upstream patch from http://sourceforge.jp/projects/xdvi/, but this patch isn't actively maintained either, and rebasing that patch is a time sink. 3) The need to incoorporate the japanese patch, and also the desire to build against the system installed kpathsea shared lib rather than link statically means we end up hacing the autotools scripts and have to run autotools during package building, and worse, we have to use old autotools as the scripts are so crusty. 4) It's one of the few users of the Xaw(3d) toolkit in the repo, and also requires legacy font support (IIRC). However, it's not clear to me if okular and evince-dvi provide equivalent functionality that we're yet in a position to drop xdvik. Comments? If you use xdvik because other viewers don't give some particular functionality, it would be helpful if you stated what that functionality is. Cheers, Jonathan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: The road to dropping xdvik
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 18:04 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote: However, it's not clear to me if okular and evince-dvi provide equivalent functionality that we're yet in a position to drop xdvik. Comments? If you use xdvik because other viewers don't give some particular functionality, it would be helpful if you stated what that functionality is. As a heavy LaTeX user I would be really against dropping xdvi before there is some other app that runs as fast. Evince very slow - xdvi shows pages straight away, whereas evince often displays Loading... -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: The road to dropping xdvik
Jussi Lehtola on 01/27/2010 01:45 PM wrote: As a heavy LaTeX user I would be really against dropping xdvi before there is some other app that runs as fast. Evince very slow - xdvi shows pages straight away, whereas evince often displays Loading... How about profiling evince instead? perf should make it dead-simple for you. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
