[bug#53536] [PATCH v2] gnu: Include poppler-data with poppler.

[Taiju HIGASHI <higashi@taiju.info>]

> > > Assertion (2) is wrong here: gimp's configure.ac directly checks for
> > > the existence of poppler-data.  That makes it a direct dependency as
> > > far as I'm concerned, even if they only ever use it through poppler.
> >
> > I did not convey the context correctly.
> >
> > I thought I was describing the behavior of the gimp package with the
> > poppler-data dependency removed (= gimp,which indirectly depend on
> > poppler-data).
> > In that state, gimp will fail to build because pkg-config cannot detect
> > poppler-data during the build process.
> > Therefore, I left the poppler-data dependency in gimp.
> >
> > I'm really sorry for my poor explanation.
> Again, w.r.t. your explanation I claim that gimp does not "indirectly"
> depend on poppler-data, but directly.  Voilà, le configure.ac [1].

> > Assertion (2) is wrong here: gimp's configure.ac directly checks for
> > the existence of poppler-data.  That makes it a direct dependency as
> > far as I'm concerned, even if they only ever use it through poppler.
>
> I did not convey the context correctly.
>
> I thought I was describing the behavior of the gimp package with the
> poppler-data dependency removed (= gimp,which indirectly depend on
> poppler-data).
> In that state, gimp will fail to build because pkg-config cannot detect
> poppler-data during the build process.
> Therefore, I left the poppler-data dependency in gimp.
>
> I'm really sorry for my poor explanation.

Your assertion that the Gimp depends on poppler-data directly, not
indirectly, is absolutely true and correct.

As you pointed out, the gimp source code definitely depends directly on
poppler-data, so it can't be built without poppler-data.

I was describing the removal of poppler-data from the input in the Gimp
package definition as "gimp indirectly depends on poppler-data", which
complicated the claim. I apologize for that.