Em 10-04-2012 10:14, Nicolás Reynolds escreveu: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:57:59 -0300, André Silva > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Parabolers, I created gnu-ghostscript package to replace >> ghostscript-libre, because It is the recommended fix by FSF >> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#GPL_Ghostscript_CMap_data_files >> >> So, i think that is not necessary to have a libre version of ghostscript >> in our repo if we have the libre alternative. >> >> Please, if your want to have more information, see: >> https://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ >> >> https://projects.parabolagnulinux.org/abslibre.git/tree/libre/gnu-ghostscript > does this version match our ghostscript-libre? we had gnu-gs version 8 > but with the change on arch to gs 9 (or a version change that changed > apis) many packages broke. when i asked the gnu-gs developers for an > update they answered "any time during the year". it took more than that > i think... > > i mean they need help. if someone could commit to follow gs updates on > gnu-gs properly we could keep gnu-gs instead. > > take in mind many recommendations from the libreplanet list are meant > for the debian pace and we're going much faster :P > > (for instance some unfree versions of packages were upgraded long time > ago by arch devs themselves) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev So, in this case, I think that a good idea is to maintain the two packages (gnu-ghoscript and ghostscript-libre) to avoid the broken dependencies. Then, someone wants the alternative version, can to use gnu-ghostscript, ou the last alternative, the libre version of ghostscript. :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
