Comment # 15 on bug 1205096 from Eric Schirra

(In reply to Dominique Leuenberger from comment #13)
> Hi Eric and Atri,
> 
> First, before we get technical: please both take care of your tone. This is
> supposed to be a friendly community where we have fun together - and this is
> gerenally also what we do. There should be no need for insults ever.
> 
> Now, to the more interesting, technical aspects (I might not get everything
> right, apologies for that)
> 
> * rsvg over inkscape
> 
> => From what I understand, this is a pure 'build time related' change,
> right? There seems to be no technical merit or disadvantage using one or the
> other to the actual USERs of the package.
> => from a packaging PoV, 'smaller build chains' are generally seen as being
> better; whereas 'smaller' does not forcibly have to equate to 'less packages
> or MB in the buildroot', but rather as 'be able to build as soon as
> possible', taking into account of the dep chains build time as well (i.e
> building behind libreoffice is substantially more expensive than building
> behind vim as a stupid example; LO alone builds for a couple hours)
> 
> Now, looking at inkscape vs rsvg-convert, this won't be a very easy anser to
> give:
> 
> rsvg-convert is behind rust and, weridly enough, two llvm versions (14 and
> 15)
> rust is rather expensive to build - and the two llvm versions obviously too
> 
> inkscape does not depend on rust, llvm15 is in the dep chain (but only
> llvm15); inkscape otoh depends on boost, cmake, poppler, systemd, and a
> larger X-stack
> Poppler in this chain is known to be 'painful' in some cases and can slow
> down package upgrades quite a bit every now and then.
> 
> Considering rsvg-convert is supported by upstream directly and does not
> require any patches, personally I'd rather go with that than inkscape - but
> mainly fro a gut-feel that rsvg-convert is written exactly for the usecase
> of convertng svg's, unlike inkscape which is in its core an end-user
> application with a GUI, that happens to convert svgs to graphic formats as
> well.
> 
> To summarize: technically, for the END USER, there us no difference;
> pacakging wise, it's replacing one BuildRequires for another, no additional
> patches are needed, as upstream introduced rsvg-support a bit over a year ago

Hi Dominique,
I see no reason or real reason to use rsvg instead of inkscape.
All distributions (Fedora, Maria, mandriva, arch...) use inkscape. Only Debian
uses rsvg.