I switched to the new ghostscript port using portmaster as follows
# portmaster -o print/ghostscript9-x11 print/ghostscript9
but it's necessary to ignore the creation of the old ghostscript
package.
After all above, I ran
# portmaster -a
--
Carlos Jacobo Puga Medina
PGP fingerprint = C60E 9
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Warren Block wrote
in :
wb> It's not clear to me how people that currently have the old
wb> print/ghostscript should switch to the new version.
wb>
wb> 'portmaster -o print/ghostscript9-x11 ghostscript9-9.06_10' (in my
wb> case) or even just 'portmaster
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 14:55 -0600, Warren Block wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Hiroki Sato wrote:
>
> > Hiroki Sato wrote
> > in <20150821.022521.792759762853683209@allbsd.org>:
> >
> > hr> So I would suggest either of the following two plans:
> > hr>
> > hr> Plan A: Just remove print/ghos
Warren Block wrote
in :
wb> It's not clear to me how people that currently have the old
wb> print/ghostscript should switch to the new version.
wb>
wb> 'portmaster -o print/ghostscript9-x11 ghostscript9-9.06_10' (in my
wb> case) or even just 'portmaster ghostscript9-9.06_10' turns into an
wb> e
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Hiroki Sato wrote
in <20150821.022521.792759762853683209@allbsd.org>:
hr> So I would suggest either of the following two plans:
hr>
hr> Plan A: Just remove print/ghostscript*-nox11.
...
hr> Plan B: Remove print/ghostscript*-nox11 and split the X
Hiroki Sato wrote
in <20150821.022521.792759762853683209@allbsd.org>:
hr> So I would suggest either of the following two plans:
hr>
hr> Plan A: Just remove print/ghostscript*-nox11.
...
hr> Plan B: Remove print/ghostscript*-nox11 and split the X11-dependent
hr> part of print/gh
On 20 Aug 2015 19:24:08 - l...@gta.com (Larry Baird) wrote
> We have serveral headless FreeBSD servers that use the ghostscript nox11
> port. We currently compile all of the ports on these boxes and have
> "OPTIONS_UNSET=X11" configured in /etc/make.conf. Just in case we ever
> switched to p
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 th
We have serveral headless FreeBSD servers that use the ghostscript nox11
port. We currently compile all of the ports on these boxes and have
"OPTIONS_UNSET=X11" configured in /etc/make.conf. Just in case we ever
switched to pre-compile ports, my vote would be for Plan B. But as long as
there is a
I haven't used -nox11 for years.
Plan A for me, but I don't have
a strong opinion.
Thank you for looking into this.
Anton
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail t
Hi,
I would like your comments about removal of ghostscript*-nox11 ports,
more specifically, whether many people think X11 library dependency
is annoying or not. After trying to fix -nox11 ports in the end of
last month and then investigating them more carefully, I also reached
a conclusion
11 matches
Mail list logo
