Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?

[Chris Pugh]

Aksh,

Matthias checks this list.  He'll see your post ( eventually ).
Probably has his head
in other things, such as earning a living!

Matthias can also be contacted via the email address to which he is
subscribed to
this list. You'll find it in the source code, and also at the bottom
of this page,

    http://wiki.swftools.org/index.php/FAQ

There are others who also submit/maintain other parts of the code base. Their
details are embedded in the source code, e.g take a look at the top of
the source
for swfstrings.c, and also in the AUTHORS text fiile contained within the source
code distro.

I think it is a case of pitch in where you think you'd be most useful.
 For me,. that'd
be to become a little more familiar with the PDF/SWF format, so I know
exactly what
each chunk of c code does, and don't add more bugs than I'd fix!   But
guidance and
a little co-ordination from above, namely Mattias and co, would be
helpful as well!

The git repository, as far as I am aware, contains the latest code:

     git clone git://git.swftools.org/swftools

so a good place to start scratching around.

A little bit of tinkering here and there on a regular basis, might
work wonders, and
also be a useful learning exercise.  Anyway, I'm game if you are.  ;o)

Regards,



Chris.

On 21 April 2010 01:37, Akshat Singh <address@hidden> wrote:
> Sorry to bug all the guys here.
>
> Chris,
> Dont seem to know how to reach Matthias. It would be great if you/Matthias
> can help establish a dialogue on how and what I can do to further the
> development through time/donation.
>
> Once again sorry for posting here but I really want to contribute.
>
> Regards
> Akshat
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Chris Pugh <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> On 21 April 2010 01:04, Akshat Singh <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > Pardon poking my nose in but I could not refrain from raising my concern
>> > against burdening generous Open Source Community with commercial motives
>> > and
>> > expectations.
>>
>> Hear, hear!
>>
>> > I would appreciate if we could ask politely for a feature if we need it
>> > and
>> > offer our assistance or support upfront.
>>
>> Very well put Sir.  if I may say so. ;o)
>>
>> > Hi Chris:
>> > On a different note, I am not very proeficient myself on PDF/Flash
>> > formats
>> > but should be ok with c/c++ (a bit rusty though). Please let me know
>> > (feel
>> > free to email me directly) if I can contribute somehow.
>>
>> I am but a humble subscriber to this list Akshat, also brushing off
>> many years of rust!
>> Matthias is the main project man, and would welcome your input in
>> whatever form you
>> feel it should take.
>>
>> > SWFTools as well as PDF2SWF are amazing effort ts and more than good
>> > enough to
>> > encourage (??) many people to cross the boundary and initiate
>> > commercial offering
>> > based on it.
>>
>> .. and what would be even nicer, is, if they publicly acknowledged that
>> fact,
>> rather than claiming otherwise!
>>
>> > My respect and appreciation to everyone involved.
>> > Can not thank enough!
>>
>> Quite!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris.
>>
>> > Akshat
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Chris Pugh <address@hidden>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> One might also try to be somewhat honest with the ( prospective )
>> >> customers!  As in..
>> >>
>> >> -  'This we are able to do.  However, there a few features that are
>> >> not yet fully implemented due to the limitations of our current
>> >> systems.
>> >> We are working hard to improve this situation, and will keep you fully
>> >> updated as to our progress.' -.
>> >> .. ' -
>> >>
>> >> As to the subject of donating time, well same also goes for myself.
>> >> I do not ( as yet ) have a thorough knowledge of c/c++, nor am I
>> >> properly
>> >> familiar with PDF/Flash formats, or even for that matter Actionscript
>> >> 2/3.  Maybe with a spot of effort wedged in here and there, this will
>> >> all come. Who knows? ;o)
>> >>
>> >> That said, just maybe a proper division of labour on the various
>> >> components would help matters along a little, rather than this all
>> >> falling on a just a few heads?  In addition, further documentation
>> >> on the existing code, and how it operates on the two formats would
>> >> be beneficial.
>> >>
>> >> For some reason, the use of pdf2swf seems to be quite widespread,
>> >> I'm really not sure why - personally I can't stand all these irritating
>> >> animations such as 'flipping' ( literally ) books!  However, since
>> >> this component srrms to be the main topic of interest, maybe it
>> >> should be seperated out from the other tools?  Just a thought.
>> >>
>> >> Chris.
>> >>
>> >> On 20 April 2010 20:16, Matthew Richer
>> >> <address@hidden>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It is a pretty common issue amongst FOSS software.  I always make a
>> >> > point of
>> >> > telling management, "Hey, if you want X feature done now (say
>> >> > multiply
>> >> > blended transparency groups), then donate some money or contact the
>> >> > lead
>> >> > developers and get a price for the custom work.  If you aren't
>> >> > willing
>> >> > to
>> >> > put money on it, then you'll have to wait for the developers to get
>> >> > around
>> >> > to it.  There are doing this in their spare time and most likely
>> >> > cannot
>> >> > and
>> >> > do not make a living off of this."  If I had enough knowledge on the
>> >> > language at hand and the area (PDF/Flash manipulations) I would
>> >> > donate
>> >> > some
>> >> > time myself, but alas I do not have the skill set.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Matt
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From:
>> >> > address@hidden
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [mailto:address@hidden
>> >> > On Behalf Of Chris Pugh
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:24 PM
>> >> > To: Michael Haufler (scireum)
>> >> > Cc: address@hidden
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?
>> >> >
>> >> > On 20 April 2010 16:09, Michael Haufler (scireum) <address@hidden>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah this is true,
>> >> >
>> >> > What's all the fuss about having a One point Zero?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/swftools-common/2010-01/msg00037.html
>> >> >
>> >> >> we are also waiting for the next release, and we are also willing to
>> >> >> test
>> >> >> the release candidate (with about 220k PDF pages).
>> >> >
>> >> > That's a good enough  incentive?  Wow!! ;o)  Now.. if you were to say
>> >> > donate
>> >> > x Euros per PDF page tested. maybe that'd be a way better one!  ( Why
>> >> > is
>> >> > it
>> >> > that web sites with a commercial bias/angle still expect to be given
>> >> > stuff
>> >> > foc,
>> >> > and invariably want it yesterday?   Or am I being a little unfair?)
>> >> >
>> >> > Chris.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Greetings
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mike
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Von: address@hidden
>> >> >> [mailto:address@hidden Im
>> >> >> Auftrag
>> >> >> von
>> >> >> filip sound
>> >> >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. April 2010 16:48
>> >> >> An: SWF Tools
>> >> >> Betreff: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i'm wondering if the development of pdf2swf is dead or still going
>> >> >> on.
>> >> >> i
>> >> > can
>> >> >> see minor fixes for single pdfs but not a new mayor release for a
>> >> >> long
>> >> > time.
>> >> >> will there be anything happening? will there be a version 1.0 some
>> >> >> day?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> please let me know,
>> >> >>   filip
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>