<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - 0.22.0 does not find openjpeg-2.0.0" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58906#c42">Comment # 42</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - 0.22.0 does not find openjpeg-2.0.0" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58906">bug 58906</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:Thomas.Freitag@alfa.de" title="Thomas Freitag <Thomas.Freitag@alfa.de>"> Thomas Freitag</a> <pre>(In reply to Albert Astals Cid from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=58906#c41">comment #41</a>) > There seems to be some movement at > <a href="https://code.google.com/p/openjpeg/issues/detail?id=254">https://code.google.com/p/openjpeg/issues/detail?id=254</a> that's good > > I know openjpeg2 can have some fixes/features versus 1, but sincerely i'd > prefer we at least don't regress and prefer 1 over 2 (for the moment) so > people stay at least as they are in the pdfs they had. > > what everyone else thinks? That would be okay for me. But just another idea: openjpeg 2.x is not available as debian package in the moment. So if someone want to use it he has to download the sources, compile and install it. This should be done only on a development system, and a developer should know what he does :-) So in my eyes: if I have installed it I also want to use it. On a "normal" system still only openjpeg 1.3 is installed.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>