On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Plan A: Just remove print/ghostscript*-nox11.Currently ghostscript depends on X11 libraries of ice, sm, x11, xext, and xt. While one can still eliminate these dependency by disabling X11 in PORT_OPTIONS, the pre-complied packages always depend on them. Pros: Simple. Cons: GS always depends on the X11 libraries. Plan B: Remove print/ghostscript*-nox11 and split the X11-dependent part of print/ghostscript9 into another port. Ghostscript can be built into two parts; one is a part without X11 libraries and another is a shared library for X11-dependent functionality. GS will find the shared library and transparently enable x11* devices only when available. So we can split ghostscript ports into base and X11 part like this: print/ghostscript9-base: no X11 dependency print/ghostscript9-x11: installs the shared library only Ports which require ghostscript can safely depend on ghostscript9-base regardless of X11 support. If they need X11 support in GS (print/gv, for example), USES=ghostscript:x11 picks up ghostscript9-x11 as an additional dependency. Pros: Minimal dependency. Cons: People may confuse what -base and -x11 mean and which package should be installed when they want ghostscript. I have created patches for the both and confirmed technical feasibility but still wondering which looks better to people who are using ghostscript. Any comments and/or questions are welcome.
Plan B sounds better to me. Confusion might be reduced by giving it a name that suggests it is an additional component rather than an alternate version of ghostscript. Maybe ghostscript9-x11libs or ghostscript9-xlibsupport or something like that?
_______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
