> > For the evince vs sugar-evince I suspect we need to try
and get the
> > mainline evince split out into evince and evince-libs so that we
> > can build sugar-evince against it similar to what we do with
> > abiword and write (I think that's its name).
>
> Yep, sounds good.
When I get a sec I'll look at what's required and file a RH bug for
evince to see if we can't get the package split up.
BTW where does the current sugar-evince srpm live?
Peter