f



pdftk on Centos 7

Does anyone know why this isn't available?  I was able to do it myself
as follows:

Download pdftk-1.44-1.el6.rf.x86_64.rpm and libgcj-4.4.7-17.el6.x86_64.rpm

$ rpm2cpio libgcj-4.4.7-17.el6.x86_64.rpm | cpio -idmv
$ sudo cp usr/lib64/libgcj.so.10.0.0 /usr/local/lib64 
$ cd /usr/local/lib64
$ sudo ln -s libgcj.so.10.0.0 libgcj.so.10
$ sudo ldconfig /usr/local/lib64

then

$ sudo rpm -i --nodeps pdftk-1.44-1.el6.rf.x86_64.rpm


Is there an easier way? I can't find a src.rpm for pdftk.

Bob T.
0
Bob
11/7/2016 2:37:29 PM
comp.os.linux.misc 33599 articles. 1 followers. amosa69 (78) is leader. Post Follow

2 Replies
676 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 2

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:37:29 +0000 (UTC), Bob Tennent wrote:
 >
 > Is there an easier way? 

A Google search turned up

https://www.globallinuxsecurity.pro/pdftk-works-on-centos-7/

and also


https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/robert/gcj/
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/robert/pdftk/

Bob T.

0
Bob
11/7/2016 8:15:43 PM
On 2016-11-07 15:37, Bob Tennent wrote:
> Is there an easier way? I can't find a src.rpm for pdftk.

cer@Telcontar:~> rpm -q pdftk
pdftk-2.02-44.9.x86_64
cer@Telcontar:~> rpm -qi pdftk
Name        : pdftk
Version     : 2.02
Release     : 44.9
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: 2015-11-17T00:43:40 CET
Group       : Productivity/Publishing/PDF
Size        : 3139123
License     : GPL-2.0+
Signature   : DSA/SHA1, 2015-11-09T18:47:08 CET, Key ID c78806d5fd09be7d
Source RPM  : pdftk-2.02-44.9.src.rpm
Build Date  : 2015-11-09T18:46:36 CET
Build Host  : cloud110
Relocations : (not relocatable)
Vendor      : obs://build.opensuse.org/Publishing
URL         : http://www.pdflabs.com/        <========================
Summary     : A handy tool for manipulating PDF
Description :
If PDF is electronic paper, then pdftk is an electronic staple-remover,
hole-punch, binder, secret-decoder-ring, and X-Ray-glasses.
Pdftk is a simple tool for doing everyday things with PDF documents.
....

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
0
Carlos
11/7/2016 11:38:41 PM
Reply: