Debian Bug report logs - #755071
evince-gtk still necessary?

Package: evince-gtk; Maintainer for evince-gtk is Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>; Source for evince-gtk is src:evince (PTS, buildd, popcon).

Reported by: <fabian@debian.org>

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:45:06 UTC

Severity: minor

Found in version evince/3.12.1-1

Fixed in version evince/3.16.1-1

Done: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox

Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:45:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:45:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Package: evince-gtk
Version: 3.12.1-1
Severity: minor

Hi all,

I wonder if a separate evince-gtk package is still necessary at all. If I am
not mistaken, evince has only two more package dependencies than evince-gtk:
libnautilus-extension1a and libsecret-1-0.

Since evince-gtk identifies itself as "evince without GNOME keyring support", I
guess it is the second dependency that is meant to get removed by the separate
build. However, libsecret-1-0 has only two additional dependencies that aren't
pulled in by evince[-gtk] anyway: libgcrypt11 and libsecret-common, of which
the latter is an Arch: all package without further dependencies. The
libnautilus-extension1a package in turn pulls in libselinux1.

So, is this it? Do we really need a separate binary package of evince to avoid
the installation of four leaf packages?

 - Fabian



-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (900, 'unstable'), (800, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.14-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Message sent on to Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>:
Bug#755071. (Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:42:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #8 received at 755071-submitter@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hello Fabian Greffrath!

Could you please ask your question about dropping evince-gtk to those
that use it? eg. the XFCE or LXDE people.

I have no objections against dropping it if noone feel they need it and
updates their dependencies accordingly.

Regards,
Andreas Henriksson

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #13 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Dear XFCE4 and LXDE maintainers,

Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2014, 15:38 +0200 schrieb Andreas Henriksson: 
> Could you please ask your question about dropping evince-gtk to those
> that use it? eg. the XFCE or LXDE people.
> 
> I have no objections against dropping it if noone feel they need it and
> updates their dependencies accordingly.

I'd like to ask you to elaborate if a separate evince-gtk package is
still necessary for your purposes, please. I have given a rationale in
#755071:

> Hi all,
> 
> I wonder if a separate evince-gtk package is still necessary at all.
> If I am
> not mistaken, evince has only two more package dependencies than
> evince-gtk:
> libnautilus-extension1a and libsecret-1-0.
> 
> Since evince-gtk identifies itself as "evince without GNOME keyring
> support", I
> guess it is the second dependency that is meant to get removed by the
> separate
> build. However, libsecret-1-0 has only two additional dependencies
> that aren't
> pulled in by evince[-gtk] anyway: libgcrypt11 and libsecret-common, of
> which
> the latter is an Arch: all package without further dependencies. The
> libnautilus-extension1a package in turn pulls in libselinux1.
> 
> So, is this it? Do we really need a separate binary package of evince
> to avoid
> the installation of four leaf packages?

Cheers,

- Fabian

Acknowledgement sent to Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:42:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #18 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 17/07/14 14:06, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Package: evince-gtk
> Version: 3.12.1-1
> Severity: minor
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I wonder if a separate evince-gtk package is still necessary at all. If I am
> not mistaken, evince has only two more package dependencies than evince-gtk:
> libnautilus-extension1a and libsecret-1-0.
> 
> Since evince-gtk identifies itself as "evince without GNOME keyring support", I
> guess it is the second dependency that is meant to get removed by the separate
> build. However, libsecret-1-0 has only two additional dependencies that aren't
> pulled in by evince[-gtk] anyway: libgcrypt11 and libsecret-common, of which
> the latter is an Arch: all package without further dependencies. The
> libnautilus-extension1a package in turn pulls in libselinux1.
> 
> So, is this it? Do we really need a separate binary package of evince to avoid
> the installation of four leaf packages?

Probably not.

Emilio

Acknowledgement sent to Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:39:12 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #23 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 17.07.2014 19:38, schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> On 17/07/14 14:06, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> Package: evince-gtk
>> Version: 3.12.1-1
>> Severity: minor
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I wonder if a separate evince-gtk package is still necessary at all. If I am
>> not mistaken, evince has only two more package dependencies than evince-gtk:
>> libnautilus-extension1a and libsecret-1-0.
>>
>> Since evince-gtk identifies itself as "evince without GNOME keyring support", I
>> guess it is the second dependency that is meant to get removed by the separate
>> build. However, libsecret-1-0 has only two additional dependencies that aren't
>> pulled in by evince[-gtk] anyway: libgcrypt11 and libsecret-common, of which
>> the latter is an Arch: all package without further dependencies. The
>> libnautilus-extension1a package in turn pulls in libselinux1.
>>
>> So, is this it? Do we really need a separate binary package of evince to avoid
>> the installation of four leaf packages?
> 
> Probably not.

Nod. I'd really like to get rid of the -gtk package and the double build.

So +1 from my side dropping evince-gtk.


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:36:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:36:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #28 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:17:10 +0200 Fabian Greffrath
<fabian@greffrath.com> wrote:
> Dear XFCE4 and LXDE maintainers,
> 
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2014, 15:38 +0200 schrieb Andreas Henriksson: 
> > Could you please ask your question about dropping evince-gtk to those
> > that use it? eg. the XFCE or LXDE people.
> > 
> > I have no objections against dropping it if noone feel they need it and
> > updates their dependencies accordingly.
> 
> I'd like to ask you to elaborate if a separate evince-gtk package is
> still necessary for your purposes, please. I have given a rationale in
> #755071:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I wonder if a separate evince-gtk package is still necessary at all.
> > If I am
> > not mistaken, evince has only two more package dependencies than
> > evince-gtk:
> > libnautilus-extension1a and libsecret-1-0.
> > 
> > Since evince-gtk identifies itself as "evince without GNOME keyring
> > support", I
> > guess it is the second dependency that is meant to get removed by the
> > separate
> > build. However, libsecret-1-0 has only two additional dependencies
> > that aren't
> > pulled in by evince[-gtk] anyway: libgcrypt11 and libsecret-common, of
> > which
> > the latter is an Arch: all package without further dependencies. The
> > libnautilus-extension1a package in turn pulls in libselinux1.
> > 
> > So, is this it? Do we really need a separate binary package of evince
> > to avoid
> > the installation of four leaf packages?

Could we have some input from the XFCE/LXDE maintainers on this matter?



-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #33 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 15/10/14 23:34, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:17:10 +0200 Fabian Greffrath
> <fabian@greffrath.com> wrote:
>> Dear XFCE4 and LXDE maintainers,
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2014, 15:38 +0200 schrieb Andreas Henriksson:
>>> Could you please ask your question about dropping evince-gtk to those
>>> that use it? eg. the XFCE or LXDE people.
>>>
>>> I have no objections against dropping it if noone feel they need it and
>>> updates their dependencies accordingly.
>>
>> I'd like to ask you to elaborate if a separate evince-gtk package is
>> still necessary for your purposes, please. I have given a rationale in
>> #755071:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I wonder if a separate evince-gtk package is still necessary at all.
>>> If I am
>>> not mistaken, evince has only two more package dependencies than
>>> evince-gtk:
>>> libnautilus-extension1a and libsecret-1-0.
>>>
>>> Since evince-gtk identifies itself as "evince without GNOME keyring
>>> support", I
>>> guess it is the second dependency that is meant to get removed by the
>>> separate
>>> build. However, libsecret-1-0 has only two additional dependencies
>>> that aren't
>>> pulled in by evince[-gtk] anyway: libgcrypt11 and libsecret-common, of
>>> which
>>> the latter is an Arch: all package without further dependencies. The
>>> libnautilus-extension1a package in turn pulls in libselinux1.
>>>
>>> So, is this it? Do we really need a separate binary package of evince
>>> to avoid
>>> the installation of four leaf packages?
>
> Could we have some input from the XFCE/LXDE maintainers on this matter?

FWIW the only differences are --disable-nautilus --without-keyring, which in 
term of Depends it means no dependency on libnautilusextension1a or 
libsecret-1-0. Note that the keyring functionality no longer depends on 
libgnome-keyring0 as it used to do. Though it may be rather useless if you don't 
depend on anything that implements the "secret" service.

Emilio

Acknowledgement sent to Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:33:20 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #38 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On mer., 2014-10-15 at 23:34 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:17:10 +0200 Fabian Greffrath
> <fabian@greffrath.com> wrote:
> > Dear XFCE4 and LXDE maintainers,
> > 
> > Am Donnerstag, den 17.07.2014, 15:38 +0200 schrieb Andreas Henriksson: 
> > > Could you please ask your question about dropping evince-gtk to those
> > > that use it? eg. the XFCE or LXDE people.
> > > 
> > > I have no objections against dropping it if noone feel they need it and
> > > updates their dependencies accordingly.
> > 
> > I'd like to ask you to elaborate if a separate evince-gtk package is
> > still necessary for your purposes, please. I have given a rationale in
> > #755071:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I wonder if a separate evince-gtk package is still necessary at all.
> > > If I am
> > > not mistaken, evince has only two more package dependencies than
> > > evince-gtk:
> > > libnautilus-extension1a and libsecret-1-0.
> > > 
> > > Since evince-gtk identifies itself as "evince without GNOME keyring
> > > support", I
> > > guess it is the second dependency that is meant to get removed by the
> > > separate
> > > build. However, libsecret-1-0 has only two additional dependencies
> > > that aren't
> > > pulled in by evince[-gtk] anyway: libgcrypt11 and libsecret-common, of
> > > which
> > > the latter is an Arch: all package without further dependencies. The
> > > libnautilus-extension1a package in turn pulls in libselinux1.
> > > 
> > > So, is this it? Do we really need a separate binary package of evince
> > > to avoid
> > > the installation of four leaf packages?
> 
> Could we have some input from the XFCE/LXDE maintainers on this matter?

Well, we already did that dance once. evince-gtk was dropped, but
reintroduced later.

Right now the dependencies seem somehow sane (even though I'm unsure we
really want a nautilus extension libraries in Xfce/LXDE desktop, I guess
it doesn't do that much harm), but I'm afraid in the future there will
be again some GNOME specific libs which would justify an evince-gtk
again.

So if it's really a maintenance burden for you, then go ahead and remove
it, I guess we (Xfce) we'll be fine, but I have the feeling it will
change again in the future.

Regards,
-- 
Yves-Alexis

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #43 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi all,

On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:32:21 +0200 Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> wrote:
> So if it's really a maintenance burden for you, then go ahead and remove
> it, I guess we (Xfce) we'll be fine, but I have the feeling it will
> change again in the future.

now that Jessie is released, we have an ACK from the XFCE maintainers
and LXDE is heading towards QT, I think we should finally get rid of
evince-gtk. Is this the consense?

Cheers,

- Fabian

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #48 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On jeu., 2015-05-14 at 13:14 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:32:21 +0200 Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> wrote:
> > So if it's really a maintenance burden for you, then go ahead and remove
> > it, I guess we (Xfce) we'll be fine, but I have the feeling it will
> > change again in the future.
> 
> now that Jessie is released, we have an ACK from the XFCE maintainers
> and LXDE is heading towards QT, I think we should finally get rid of
> evince-gtk. Is this the consense?

I'm unsure I would call that a consensus, but as I said earlier, if you
really hate that additional package, then sure, get rid of it.

Note that Xfce maintainers aren't the only relevant people here,
although it might be the easiest to consult. I don't really like having
to force Xfce users to install libnautilus (which actually bother me
more than libsecret), but I'm pretty sure evince-gtk is used by a lot of
people from the “non DE” crowd (people using only a WM). Sure, they can
switch to xpdf instead, but evince-gtk was a really nice alternative I
think.

Anyway,
-- 
Yves-Alexis

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #53 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Yves-Alexis,

Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2015, 13:46 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez: 
> Note that Xfce maintainers aren't the only relevant people here,
> although it might be the easiest to consult. I don't really like having
> to force Xfce users to install libnautilus (which actually bother me
> more than libsecret), but I'm pretty sure evince-gtk is used by a lot of
> people from the “non DE” crowd (people using only a WM). Sure, they can
> switch to xpdf instead, but evince-gtk was a really nice alternative I
> think.

thank you very much for your reply. Indeed, I did not have the non-DE
crowd in mind when requesting the removal of evince-gtk.

Actually, no file in /usr/bin/evice* is linked against libnautilus,
but /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-3.0/libevince-properties-page.so is:

$ ldd /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-3.0/libevince-properties-page.so | grep nautilus
	libnautilus-extension.so.1 => /usr/lib/libnautilus-extension.so.1 (0x00007fa0da86e000)

Maybe this can be factored out into a separate package and everybody is
happy?

- Fabian

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #58 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On jeu., 2015-05-14 at 14:23 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Hi Yves-Alexis,
> 
> Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2015, 13:46 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez: 
> > Note that Xfce maintainers aren't the only relevant people here,
> > although it might be the easiest to consult. I don't really like having
> > to force Xfce users to install libnautilus (which actually bother me
> > more than libsecret), but I'm pretty sure evince-gtk is used by a lot of
> > people from the “non DE” crowd (people using only a WM). Sure, they can
> > switch to xpdf instead, but evince-gtk was a really nice alternative I
> > think.
> 
> thank you very much for your reply. Indeed, I did not have the non-DE
> crowd in mind when requesting the removal of evince-gtk.
> 
> Actually, no file in /usr/bin/evice* is linked against libnautilus,
> but /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-3.0/libevince-properties-page.so is:
> 
> $ ldd /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-3.0/libevince-properties-page.so | grep nautilus
> 	libnautilus-extension.so.1 => /usr/lib/libnautilus-extension.so.1 (0x00007fa0da86e000)
> 
> Maybe this can be factored out into a separate package and everybody is
> happy?

I guess so, yes. If what annoys you most about evince-gtk is the double
build (which I can understand) and not the separate binary package, then
I guess it's the most sensible solution.

Regards,
-- 
Yves-Alexis

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #63 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 14/05/15 14:25, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On jeu., 2015-05-14 at 14:23 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> Hi Yves-Alexis,
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2015, 13:46 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez: 
>>> Note that Xfce maintainers aren't the only relevant people here,
>>> although it might be the easiest to consult. I don't really like having
>>> to force Xfce users to install libnautilus (which actually bother me
>>> more than libsecret), but I'm pretty sure evince-gtk is used by a lot of
>>> people from the “non DE” crowd (people using only a WM). Sure, they can
>>> switch to xpdf instead, but evince-gtk was a really nice alternative I
>>> think.
>>
>> thank you very much for your reply. Indeed, I did not have the non-DE
>> crowd in mind when requesting the removal of evince-gtk.
>>
>> Actually, no file in /usr/bin/evice* is linked against libnautilus,
>> but /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-3.0/libevince-properties-page.so is:
>>
>> $ ldd /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-3.0/libevince-properties-page.so | grep nautilus
>> 	libnautilus-extension.so.1 => /usr/lib/libnautilus-extension.so.1 (0x00007fa0da86e000)
>>
>> Maybe this can be factored out into a separate package and everybody is
>> happy?
> 
> I guess so, yes. If what annoys you most about evince-gtk is the double
> build (which I can understand) and not the separate binary package, then
> I guess it's the most sensible solution.

Just build evince with

DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_evince += -X/usr/lib/nautilus/

(or whatever it should be, I'm saying this from memory). That would exclude the
extension from ${shlibs:Depends}, which means evince won't depend on
libnautilus-extension1a. Since the extension is (I guess) only used by nautilus
itself, which already links to libnautilus-extension, that should be fine (and
is what we normally do for dlopen'ed extensions).

Emilio

Message #68 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am 14.05.2015 um 16:13 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> Just build evince with
> 
> DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_evince += -X/usr/lib/nautilus/
> 
> (or whatever it should be, I'm saying this from memory). That would exclude the
> extension from ${shlibs:Depends}, which means evince won't depend on
> libnautilus-extension1a. Since the extension is (I guess) only used by nautilus
> itself, which already links to libnautilus-extension, that should be fine (and
> is what we normally do for dlopen'ed extensions).

The downside would be, that it would become harder to tracker reverse
dependencies of libnautilus, in case there is an API incompatible change
and extensions need to be updated.


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Fri, 15 May 2015 06:18:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Fri, 15 May 2015 06:18:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #73 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2015, 22:41 +0200 schrieb Michael Biebl: 
> The downside would be, that it would become harder to tracker reverse
> dependencies of libnautilus, in case there is an API incompatible change
> and extensions need to be updated.

It is still possible to track it by means of reverse Build-Depends and
we could additionally add libnautilus to Suggests, so it even shows up
in "apt-cache rdepends" output.

- Fabian

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Changed Bug submitter to '<fabian@debian.org>' from 'Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>' Request was from <fabian@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 18 May 2015 11:27:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Tue, 19 May 2015 08:57:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Fabian Greffrath <fabian@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Tue, 19 May 2015 08:57:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #80 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi again,

Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2015, 16:13 +0200 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo
Monfort: 
> Just build evince with
> 
> DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_evince += -X/usr/lib/nautilus/
> 
> (or whatever it should be, I'm saying this from memory). That would exclude the
> extension from ${shlibs:Depends}, which means evince won't depend on
> libnautilus-extension1a. Since the extension is (I guess) only used by nautilus
> itself, which already links to libnautilus-extension, that should be fine (and
> is what we normally do for dlopen'ed extensions).

so, do you think this can be done in the next upload?

- Fabian

(who went washing his fingers after seeing that evince was packaged in
SVN and built using CDBS *g*)

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Tue, 19 May 2015 14:39:13 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Tue, 19 May 2015 14:39:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #85 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 19/05/15 10:53, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2015, 16:13 +0200 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo
> Monfort: 
>> Just build evince with
>>
>> DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_evince += -X/usr/lib/nautilus/
>>
>> (or whatever it should be, I'm saying this from memory). That would exclude the
>> extension from ${shlibs:Depends}, which means evince won't depend on
>> libnautilus-extension1a. Since the extension is (I guess) only used by nautilus
>> itself, which already links to libnautilus-extension, that should be fine (and
>> is what we normally do for dlopen'ed extensions).
> 
> so, do you think this can be done in the next upload?

Sure, if someone does it (I can't right now).

Emilio

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Tue, 19 May 2015 16:09:16 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #90 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am Dienstag, den 19.05.2015, 16:37 +0200 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo
Monfort: 
> Sure, if someone does it (I can't right now).

I have commited my approach in SVN, tried to be mostly non-invasive.

Cheers,

Fabian

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:51:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:51:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #95 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am Dienstag, den 19.05.2015, 18:08 +0200 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> 
> I have commited my approach in SVN, tried to be mostly non-invasive.

It appears that the changes I have prepared in the unstable branch in
SVN have been overridden by rev. 45309 "Move experimental branch to
unstable". Please be more careful next time to not override other
peoples work when merging branches!

 - Fabian

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Tue, 23 Jun 2015 06:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Tue, 23 Jun 2015 06:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #100 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 22/06/15 09:47, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 19.05.2015, 18:08 +0200 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
>>
>> I have commited my approach in SVN, tried to be mostly non-invasive.
> 
> It appears that the changes I have prepared in the unstable branch in
> SVN have been overridden by rev. 45309 "Move experimental branch to
> unstable". Please be more careful next time to not override other
> peoples work when merging branches!

(Trimming the list of Cc.) I think your changes were moved away to make a bugfix
upload, and then moved back. At least that's what it seems to me.

Cheers,
Emilio

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Tue, 23 Jun 2015 06:57:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #105 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am Dienstag, den 23.06.2015, 08:15 +0200 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo
Monfort:
> 
> (Trimming the list of Cc.) I think your changes were moved away to 
> make a bugfix
> upload, and then moved back. At least that's what it seems to me.

Ah, sure that's possible. Seriously, are there any plans to switch the
repository to GIT? I am really not used to working with SVN anymore...
:/

Thanks,

Fabian

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>:
Bug#755071; Package evince-gtk. (Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:00:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>. (Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:00:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #110 received at 755071@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On 23/06/15 08:54, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 23.06.2015, 08:15 +0200 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo
> Monfort:
>>
>> (Trimming the list of Cc.) I think your changes were moved away to 
>> make a bugfix
>> upload, and then moved back. At least that's what it seems to me.
> 
> Ah, sure that's possible. Seriously, are there any plans to switch the
> repository to GIT? I am really not used to working with SVN anymore...
> :/

Yes, Sjoerd has been working on that.

Emilio

Reply sent to Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Notification sent to <fabian@debian.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:21:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #115 received at 755071-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Source: evince
Source-Version: 3.16.1-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
evince, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 755071@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> (supplier of updated evince package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 23:40:06 +0200
Source: evince
Binary: evince evince-dbg evince-gtk evince-common libevdocument3-4 libevview3-3 libevince-dev gir1.2-evince-3.0
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 3.16.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
Description:
 evince     - Document (PostScript, PDF) viewer
 evince-common - Document (PostScript, PDF) viewer - common files
 evince-dbg - Document (PostScript, PDF) viewer - debugging symbols
 evince-gtk - dummy package for the transition from evince-gtk to evince
 gir1.2-evince-3.0 - GObject introspection data for the evince libraries
 libevdocument3-4 - Document (PostScript, PDF) rendering library
 libevince-dev - Document (PostScript, PDF) rendering library - development files
 libevview3-3 - Document (PostScript, PDF) rendering library - Gtk+ widgets
Closes: 755071
Changes:
 evince (3.16.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   [ Fabian Greffrath ]
   * Build only the full-flavored variant of Evince (Closes: #755071).
     + Disable building of the evince-gtk flavor.
     + Turn evince-gtk into a transitional package that depends on evince.
     + Add Breaks and Replaces to the evince package accordingly.
     + Move gvfs from Recommends to Suggests.
     + Exclude the "/usr/lib/nautilus/" path from dh_shlibdeps to avoid
       the infamous dependency on libnautilus*.
   * Append "-Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,defs" to LDFLAGS to avoid more
     unnecessary dependencies.
 .
   [ Michael Biebl ]
   * Remove leftover bits from the flavors build which are no longer necessary.
   * New upstream release.
   * Drop obsolete Breaks/Replaces from pre-wheezy.
   * Update debian/libevdocument3-4.symbols, add new symbols.
   * Install AppData files.
   * Bump debhelper compatibility level to 9.
   * Bump Build-Depends on libgtk-3-dev to (>= 3.15.3) as per configure.ac.
   * Drop Build-Depends on gnome-icon-theme, no longer needed.
Checksums-Sha1:
 27c550989926b71b8caf0b22874712ffa63fae9b 3079 evince_3.16.1-1.dsc
 8d846547f52fd317a7611386ff644a4f3e06c8b7 3113776 evince_3.16.1.orig.tar.xz
 0b059e69442616df52cabd4eb3d7970b079a7aff 23844 evince_3.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz
 39bb4aae1b3b63eb8293323aeb95d56d8318637a 2209962 evince-common_3.16.1-1_all.deb
 2ef74f09c274913d2939691c77c38f430534eec0 2243442 evince-dbg_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 e201af2db24f55b0f1fec26ddd5f54ded793dbf1 607652 evince-gtk_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 ea7a52c0769f88b77029b6c51a6b280dc0386b50 756892 evince_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 1b4d4005eb4aff3df29cc9b551806c030304d81a 627460 gir1.2-evince-3.0_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 9198c3febead1b74d9393a4067d3a63bac921225 785708 libevdocument3-4_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 0e7938791b0fe26d53c29fbefa6b24d07528b07c 940930 libevince-dev_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 ff8eff636f088edec64a2ce251ef6d054d807204 718378 libevview3-3_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256:
 f55fbf6b004ff6c6074d1e7bb7ce71c919e58bae8e330928385942b4c0d05558 3079 evince_3.16.1-1.dsc
 06ff75065b2a30cd588c402f6bd2ea88ee3166181805e0cc00bd54f71dbf6130 3113776 evince_3.16.1.orig.tar.xz
 2843c63e1b68c67ff051a85fb83ef607c9e5051d9226d5dc4e26176cf889b836 23844 evince_3.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz
 916f59d3f6665a29958665de27d39b160a84f5465e96fdc090bc54059f043119 2209962 evince-common_3.16.1-1_all.deb
 47d9c34547c8911e48dbc4be57bd5c0594d704137790a2a9a1bc3eb9e55ac79c 2243442 evince-dbg_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 6c32c07ea614cd78d6d0944bbfb57fc50486c77f020c139f3192e7b3e9d4e594 607652 evince-gtk_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 4978d7e1e56f7678e22deb53a2bcf838060c36b416b289c2f4f626b7225bf136 756892 evince_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 fdc758fbed53e7762c6c7f2b7fcf65b55d92ff5dfd9f1a5eaa247f61b4e0b7da 627460 gir1.2-evince-3.0_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 eea5a0048d02f887519595df900e9cb534af0367fe25408838a0b62d282842be 785708 libevdocument3-4_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 c306bfe683f9199f772d08cca6830eb8ae1ef6e8bb9f1df4483c5a6f42f95f05 940930 libevince-dev_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 2d87b346edc46046046cd6a55b94352fdf77a4f3b5112277b08e8dd149b7ca6a 718378 libevview3-3_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
Files:
 9e70a525599143671da33ad4bea2ef4c 3079 gnome optional evince_3.16.1-1.dsc
 6a5e4aa41d7026eb477290416d9f2a5b 3113776 gnome optional evince_3.16.1.orig.tar.xz
 3a7db968b3e0c178d5ffb56c97d21fbb 23844 gnome optional evince_3.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz
 d207cee54cbc13128dd6e017b92fb28a 2209962 gnome optional evince-common_3.16.1-1_all.deb
 274b568d03a23334a0dca685fb6f8050 2243442 debug extra evince-dbg_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 8329b454cb3de62b9b334393a0c6bac9 607652 oldlibs extra evince-gtk_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 4dc9f4c26f6f0692630e41371e582628 756892 gnome optional evince_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 8d4994ecad22d3a12a8c1657f87c2b7d 627460 introspection optional gir1.2-evince-3.0_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 2e88aef3e29e6ffdfbd5c08dc467f195 785708 libs optional libevdocument3-4_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 fda5bc1f998c1daf32d89a1d2af4ad0d 940930 libdevel optional libevince-dev_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb
 682933d2e1512018a69ccef705d478c7 718378 libs optional libevview3-3_3.16.1-1_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=mQ34
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:35:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.

Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Jan 4 11:57:38 2018; Machine Name: buxtehude

Debian Bug tracking system

Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.

Debian Bug report logs - #755071 evince-gtk still necessary?

Debian Bug report logs - #755071
evince-gtk still necessary?