| <<<Back 1 day (to 2019/06/13) | Fwd 1 day (to 2019/06/15)>>> | 20190614 |
ator | sebras: see tor/master for some encryption related commits before you reply to raed | 09:28.19 |
sebras | ator: I was also looking for the clean encryption commit. I don't know where it was lost. | 09:42.31 |
ator | sebras: during one of your rebases I think | 09:42.46 |
| because it hadn't been updated for the upwd_utf8 rename | 09:42.55 |
sebras | ator: or I completely forgot to pick it up from your branch. | 09:43.11 |
ator | sebras: anyway, updated commit, along with a few more, on tor/master | 09:43.51 |
| with that your example can be: mutool clean -E rc4-40 -U userpass -O ownerpass -P 12 input.pdf encrypted.pdf | 09:44.24 |
sebras | your three commits looks reasonable. | 09:47.51 |
| I'd like to add the first commit on sebras/master. | 09:48.04 |
| perhaps s/method/algorithm/..? | 09:48.19 |
ator | sebras: there should be 4 commits | 09:48.26 |
| it's the combination of algorithm and number of bits | 09:48.55 |
sebras | ator: now there are four. | 09:48.58 |
ator | "Improve error message." LGTM | 09:49.21 |
| so I think 'method' is fine | 09:49.46 |
sebras | ator: the usage string LGTM. | 09:50.35 |
ator | sebras: thanks. | 09:57.04 |
sebras | ator: I'm running it in the cluster. | 09:57.19 |
| not that it matters. | 09:57.25 |
ator | only if we slipped up somewhere :) | 09:57.45 |
sebras | since I tend to do that myself, I always run it. | 09:58.04 |
| ator: the cluster came out good. | 09:59.37 |
| ator: will do you the push? | 10:00.04 |
ator | sebras: done. | 10:02.16 |
sebras | ator: is there any point in showing the -gl implementation to read? | 10:06.07 |
| I'm not quite sure how mupdf is used in their case. | 10:06.43 |
ator | not really, no. it's more likely to confuse than help. the 'mutool clean' commit is probably a better choice of example. | 10:07.47 |
| there are quite a number of commits involved now, maybe just point him to origin/master? | 10:09.21 |
sebras | I'm afraid there might be one more. | 10:09.47 |
| oh, the java code doesn't need to use pdf_default_write_options. | 10:10.55 |
ator | no, nothing that calls parse_write_options needs it | 10:11.11 |
sebras | ator: pdf_write_document() and pdf_save_document() have interesting names. | 10:32.22 |
| ator: isn't pdf_write_document() missing things that are present in pdf_save_document()? seems to to me. | 10:33.33 |
ator | sebras: don't blame me :) | 10:57.31 |
| but yes, I don't see why pdf_save_document doesn't just call pdf_write_document? | 10:57.44 |
| I guess the incremental thing? | 10:58.02 |
sebras | naah. | 10:58.08 |
| it is only java calling pdf_write_document(). | 10:58.14 |
| I can't see that java needs special treatment. | 10:58.21 |
| it may need to pass fz_output instead of a filename, but that ought to be the only difference. | 10:59.01 |
ator | the other foo_(save|write)_things are different, there the "save" function is just a wrapper for the "write" function | 10:59.06 |
| the fz_save_pixmap_as_foo family | 10:59.29 |
| oh, hm, not exactly. nevermind then. | 11:00.03 |
| though I don't see why not, they could all be simplified it looks like to me | 11:00.47 |
sebras | ator: can I trouble you with looking at the mail? | 11:11.17 |
| I'd better get that sent today. | 11:11.27 |
ator | sebras: looks good to me. | 11:20.57 |
sebras | ator: thanks! | 11:25.24 |
| done. | 11:27.24 |
| <<<Back 1 day (to 2019/06/13) | Forward 1 day (to 2019/06/15)>>> | |