Tracking podofo in downstream package ecosystem

[luzpaz]

Noticed that many downstream package repositories are still referencing sourceforge as the destination to retrieve podofo from. So I started letting downstream know. Any help is welcome, perhaps we can ping maintainers from the list below?

• [ ] Conan (https://github.com/conan-io/conan-center-index/issues/18323)
• [ ] Debian unstable
• [x] Fedora Rawhide
• [x] gentoo
• [x] homebrew (discussion) PR: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/135848
• [ ] macports (https://trac.macports.org/ticket/67719#ticket)
• [x] openmamba
• [ ] OpenMandriva Rolling
• [ ] OpenSUSE Tumbleweed
• [x] Void linux (https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/44846)

[luzpaz]

CC @mapreri, sorry for the bump but would it be possible to update podofo in Debian unstable ? :point_up_2: (the package URL needs to change from sourceforge to github)

[ceztko]

Hello, thank your for creating this tracking ticket! I'm currently not urging distros/package managers to upgrade, especially since tools are not yet ready to be released (I want to work on them in couple of weeks) and there are more API changes planned for the future, but with 0.10.1 at least there's an hardening update and I'm happy to see more migration happening in the wild! The static website was on sourceforge but since I didn't rush to revamp it I'm now now more inclined to have it here in github as well, so I created a placeholder https://podofo.github.io/ . If and when I will revamp the static website I will drop it there. Updated also the reference to it on github repository page.

[luzpaz]

Sorry for jumping the gun on this. Some packages have already been updated so the ball has been set in motion...hopefully that isn't going to be too much of an issue?? :frowning_face:

[ceztko]

No issue at all, the only issue is that I am not a big fan of podofo tools and I still didn't have much time to look at them to modernize the code there and put them in a state where I can comfortably support them for small fixes, if required (I won't look at them to add new features or major bug fixing, I'm just not interested in tools). I understand this may be stop some distros from upgrading until there's a clear word on their future. I didn't receive the help I was hoping for in the PoDoFo ML, so I will give them a last try this summer.

[mapreri]

CC @mapreri, sorry for the bump but would it be possible to update podofo in Debian unstable ? point_up_2 (the package URL needs to change from sourceforge to github)

yes of course. I'm fully aware of the new podofo home and the new release… just that I somehow got incredibly busy recently. I'll try to bump my priority here.

[ceztko]

Hello @mapreri . I just wanted to inform here that PoDoFo 1.0.0 is coming soon, featuring some kind of stable API (E.T.A: 1-2 months). At this point I think it may be a good idea to just skip 0.10.x in Debian/Ubuntu and put 1.0.0 in fast track, but I don't know what would be the interaction with other packages depending on PoDofo. Kalibre/Scribus should be the main one: both migrated/added support for 0.10.x already, but they are possibly incompatible with 1.0.0 for now. If you hoped tools to come as well for 1.0.0, I'm sorry but their support state is still indeterminate. I'm confident at some point they may be finally reinstanced, but I can't give any E.T.A. on that at the moment.