-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I found a thread here about this problem, but no answer or resolution as to whether it's a bug, or even something that can be fixed. <http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12114&forum=38> I'm trying to get PDF support under DocMGR to work correctly and it's complaining about pdftoppm being missing. A bit of Googling and I found where pdftoppm is supposed to be included with poppler-utils package. I check on my FC 7 system which is running poppler-utils poppler-utils-0.5.4-7.fc7, and pdftoppm is physically there and located in /usr/bin. I'm running CentOS 5 with poppler-utils-0.5.4-4.3.el5_1. Is this a bug? Or is this resolvable? Thanks, Max -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHqhL1IXSX/6LmsXkRAvckAJ0fdUNflY6UdTdXAYhK4BlFndCOEgCfeToa 61Uo4Nonpcpgd13KPWPVtrU=Yo9J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Max Hetrick wrote:> A bit of Googling and I found where pdftoppm is supposed to be included > with poppler-utils package. > > I check on my FC 7 system which is running poppler-utils > poppler-utils-0.5.4-7.fc7, and pdftoppm is physically there and located > in /usr/bin. > > I'm running CentOS 5 with poppler-utils-0.5.4-4.3.el5_1. > > Is this a bug? Or is this resolvable?Looks like a bug - probably happened when poppler-utils and xpdf still were installable side by side (and both provided pdftoppm). Though I found no bug report upstream regarding that issue - is noone missing pdftoppm? Cheers, Ralph -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080207/d1f5689f/attachment.sig>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ralph Angenendt wrote:> Looks like a bug - probably happened when poppler-utils and xpdf still > were installable side by side (and both provided pdftoppm). Though I > found no bug report upstream regarding that issue - is noone missing > pdftoppm?Thanks, Ralph. Is there anything that you'd like me to do so that a bug report could be filed? Regards, Max -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHqxLpIXSX/6LmsXkRAm9yAJ4vlOHNJPmsf/0PLxe18DBpuRgIwgCdGVBZ wJDOpN788rG7MWfxxegvKcs=exM3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Ralph Angenendt wrote:>> I check on my FC 7 system which is running poppler-utils> Looks like a bug - probably happened when poppler-utils and xpdf still > were installable side by side (and both provided pdftoppm). Though I > found no bug report upstream regarding that issue - is noone missing > pdftoppm?very curous, Ralph. I recall filing such upstream a couple of months ago and forgot about it as I built around it. I cannot put my fingers on it atm, however. A variant has been (mis) reported before, though: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=211724 and closed pointing to an alternative conversion routine. I see this fustercluck from packaging moves as well: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=219936 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=219032 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=219828 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=219033 'spot' requests a clean filing of the issue against 'poppler' but I cannot find that this happened. -- Russ herrold