| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2017/11/09) | 20171110 |
| chrisl | pipitas1: the mupdf content on artifex.com is under review just now - we are aware of a number of problems with it. | 07:19.41 |
| | pipitas1: I've fixed the mupdf "old releases" link on ghostscript.com | 07:20.12 |
| | pipitas1: I don't understand: "Shouldn't you add the licensing info in relation to the Linux platform to the table in https://www.ghostscript.com/download/mupdfdnld.html" | 07:20.57 |
| | The licensing is the same across all platforms.... so <shrug> | 07:21.22 |
| pipitas1 | chrisl: The table is confusing people (I just met one) in that it explicitly states licensing terms for "Android" and for "Windows 32bit", but nothing for Linux (and the Source "for all platforms" is in very small print) | 07:59.39 |
| | But the new website design indeed is very nice | 07:59.56 |
| chrisl | pipitas1: we only distribute binaries for Windows and Android - hence only those are listed. | 08:04.38 |
| pipitas | chrisl: Is my guess correct, that building binaries for Linux is just too cumbersome, because of the many incompatibilities on the various Linux distros, and it's too much work to build (and support!) each individually? | 08:08.51 |
| chrisl | Yes, exactly. | 08:09.29 |
| pipitas | has an idea how this problem could be solved, without static linking even | 08:17.51 |
| pipitas | wants to create a proof of concept first and "build one Linux binary that runs on multiple distros, old and new" before he makes the concrete suggestion to chrisl and the MuPDF/Artifex team⦠| 08:19.22 |
| | chrisl: the thing on GitHub is just a passive mirror, right? One cannot submit Pull Requests there, or create "issues" (it's GS Bugzilla only), right? | 08:25.55 |
| chrisl | pipitas: it is a passive mirror, yes, but you can do pull requests and open issues - but we don't monitor it especially diligently, do our bugzilla would be a better idea | 08:29.02 |
| | pipitas: And, frankly, you'd be better discussing this on #mupdf - Tor is the one you need to convince | 08:29.27 |
| | But since most people in the LInux world know mupdf as a viewer, that kind of cross-distro compatibility is a rather bigger problem than with Ghostscript | 08:30.10 |
| pipitas1 | chrisl: sorry for frequent disconnections â unstable network here⦠| 08:37.49 |
| | But I read up on your irc logs your last answer. I didnt grok your last sentence though: "But since most people in the LInux world know mupdf as a viewer, that kind of cross-distro compatibility is a rather bigger problem than with Ghostscript"? | 08:38.28 |
| chrisl | GUI libraries tend to be a faster moving target than libc | 08:38.54 |
| pipitas1 | IS it or is it NOT a bigger problem for MuPDF? | 08:39.04 |
| chrisl | It is a bigger problem with mupdf than with Ghostscript | 08:39.39 |
| pipitas1 | My solution would get the GUI as well as the "mutool foobar" sub commands into one binary, and it would execute whatever name it's called via a symlink. And would work on 95% of all Linux systems, being rather fully "portable", even running from an USB thumbdriveâ¦. | 08:41.26 |
| | However, I'll join #mupdf. Thanks for the pointer. | 08:41.50 |
| Robin_Watts | pipitas1: there is no way we will merge gui and non gui stuff into a single binary. | 08:43.21 |
| pipitas1 | Robin_Watts: Well, it's up to you. You can as well separate it into two binaries. | 08:44.27 |
| | Robin_Watts: I'm just saying that it would be possible⦠| 08:44.59 |
| | Forward 1 day (to 2017/11/11)>>> | |
Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.