Package Details: pdfstudio-bin 2023.0.4-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/pdfstudio-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: pdfstudio-bin
Description: Review, annotate, and edit PDF Documents
Upstream URL: https://www.qoppa.com/pdfstudio/
Licenses: custom
Conflicts: pdfstudio
Provides: pdfstudio
Replaces: pdfstudio
Submitter: alerque
Maintainer: alerque (flamusdiu, simonzack)
Last Packager: simonzack
Votes: 36
Popularity: 0.85
First Submitted: 2020-04-10 22:40 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-01-25 10:12 (UTC)

Dependencies (1)

Required by (0)

Sources (3)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .. 14 Next › Last »

josete commented on 2020-10-19 20:46 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot. I'll try it.

BTW, I install AUR applications with: yay -S package_name That's why I didn't know anything about git, clone, makepkg ...

Thanks again!

alerque commented on 2020-10-19 07:18 (UTC)

@josete: There is only one step different from a manual AUR installation. You clone the repository, enter it (same so far), then checkout the revision you want to build (this step is different, the 0f0cf1f commit I looked up in "view changes" from this page as the last 2019 revision), then build and install as usual.

$ git clone https://aur.archlinux.org/pdfstudio-bin.git
$ cd pdfstudio-bin
$ git checkout 0f0cf1f
$ makepkg -i

josete commented on 2020-10-17 13:19 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea how to do anything of that.

alerque commented on 2020-10-09 08:07 (UTC)

@josete The packaging is a Git repository with full history. Just use the URL at the top of the page to clone this, then git checkout whichever commit has the version you want to build, then run makepkg. This package already has a long tail of split off AUR packages for many versions along the way and I think catering to that licensing issue is crazy. If you don't have a license and don't want to use just the free parts don't upgrade the package past the version you want to use. One you build the version you want, you can pass around the built packages to your other machines to save the trouble building the right one.

josete commented on 2020-10-09 07:09 (UTC)

In my humble opinion there should be 2 different packages, one for version 19 and one for version 20. I have a license for PDF Studio Pro 19 but not for the new one. My system keeps saying I have 1 update available and that's not true.

yochananmarqos commented on 2020-10-07 15:43 (UTC) (edited on 2020-10-07 15:43 (UTC) by yochananmarqos)

@caleb: You make a valid argument. Point taken.

See Nonfree applications package guidelines:

Use the suffix -bin always unless you are sure there will never be a source-based package

In this case I'm pretty sure it's safe to say there will never be a source-based package, but there's nothing wrong with using the -bin suffix.

alerque commented on 2020-10-07 09:46 (UTC)

@yochananmarqos I actually really dislike that Arch packaging guidelines allow binary packages without -bin; I prefer to know up front when I search the AUR using yay --aur -Ss or similar tools whether a package I see is going to be a source build or an upstream binary. Last I checked the Arch guidelines allowed using -bin suffixes for these kind of things even if the sources was not available, it just doesn't require the -bin designation. Is that not still the case?

yochananmarqos commented on 2020-10-06 00:28 (UTC)

This should be called pdfstudio as there is no source code available; therefore no -bin designation is required.

Anonymo commented on 2020-10-06 00:15 (UTC)

Any way to use this app with the newest java without the top bar disappearing?