Hi, >>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> "Kamaraju Kusumanchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However 2) is something that should be fixed in the new > > ghostscript packages. IMO ghostscript-x should be providing gs, > > gs-esp and gs-gpl, and not ghostscript. If that had been the case, > > I would not have been allowed to remove ghostscript-x. > I like this idea myself. But would like to hear from the > maintainers. I fixed it in 8.62.dfsg.1-1. Now ghostscript doesn't provide old "gs" packages with X11 support -- gs-esp, gs-gpl, gs-afpl, gs-aladdin -- instead, ghostscript-x does. Thanks all for suggestion. > Also, Is it fine if a package depends/recommends/suggests the gs > package? or should the maintainers remove the dependency on gs > package completely and explicitly depend upon ghostscript or > ghostscript-x? If that package really needs X11 support, then they should depend on ghostscript-x explicitly, or gs (which depends on ghostscript and ghostscript-x). If they don't need X11 support (like software which are used in printer servers or such), they may depend on ghostscript (without X11) explicitly. Ghostscript doesn't depend/recommend on ghostscript-x at all(but I made it suggest -x recently). I think most of packages which need Ghostscript implicitly assume the presence of X11 support (like kghostview), so "Depends: gs" is a safe bet even now. Actually, now I kinda regret that I didn't name the new one as ghostscript (with X11 support) and ghostscript-nox. That was my fault. Best regards, MH -- Masayuki Hatta Graduate School of Economics, The University of Tokyo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
