Re: [Swftools-common] pdf2swf -I

[Chris Pugh]

2009/11/21 Yousif Masoud <address@hidden>:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Chris Pugh <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2009/11/21 Yousif Masoud <address@hidden>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> Sorry for reviving an old topic, but I'm still having the same issue with
>>> swftools 0.9.0 (I downloaded today and installed on a Debian x64 server):
>>>
>>> pdf2swf -v gives:
>>> pdf2swf - part of swftools 0.9.0
>>>
>>> When I issue pdf2swf -I filename.pdf, I get:
>>> NOTICE  Output filename not given. Writing to filename.swf
>>
>>
>> Don't use -o { stating an output swf filename ), and the program uses the
>> given input file name less the file extension by default.
>>
>> May one ask what exactly it is, that incorrect about this behaviour?
>> How do you see this as a 'bug' ( with either a 32 or 64bit system )?
>>
>> [JOOI]
>>
>>
>> Chris.
>
>
> Thanks for your prompt response.
>
> I'm not using the -o flag.  I have tested that several times including

I was aware of that! ;o)

> typing the command below directly into the command prompt.
>
> The command I type is:
>>> pdf2swf -I filename.pdf
>
> and it produces:
> NOTICE  Output filename not given. Writing to filename.swf

Which is perfectly understandable.  The command still acts as it
should, and the swf file is still created.  All you are getting is a
confirmation of what is happening.  I personally, would prefer this to
no warning at all.

If this is a real nuisance for you, then maybe the inclusion of a  -q
{ quiet } flag to supress the verbose comments that are being
generated, would be of benefit?  Either that, or send them into the
ether yourself.

> When I import the pdf2swf.c file from a swftools package (downloaded 4
> months ago) and re-compile, I don't get the notice above anymore and the
> output goes to stdout.

I'm still not sure quite why you are contaminating newer versions with
older code.  Anything could
happen, the worst scenario being a non-functional version of pdf2swf.

> Apologies if I implied this was a bug, that was not my intention.

No apologies necessary.  However, I'm still not understanding *why*
you prefer the 'old behaviour', in preference
to the 'new behaviour'  ;o)


Chris.