On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:12:57 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:42:36 +0200, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > We already have ESP-GhostScript, so I think we should use GhostScript >> > (GNU-Ghostscript was already using that) and artofcode-Ghostscript >> > with a possible AFPL-Ghostscript if that ever releases again (I'm >> > confused about the plan for it). >> > >> It's the artofcode GPL-version that has the name 'Ghostscript', not the >> GNU-version, so we have to rename all of the recipes and the best thing >> would probably be to have no version use just 'Ghostscript'. But I was >> thinking, to make the versions easier to group, perhaps when listing, >> wouldn't it be better to have the type/version as a suffix instead of >> prefix, and by that those will be listed side by side? >> >> > Second-best is to rename the GNU one to GNU-GhostScript, call the >> > ex-AFPL one artofcode-Ghostscript and blacklist GhostScript as >> > ambiguous. Maybe we could even include a 'don't use this, use one of >> > these' recipe or would that break stuff? >> > >> > GPL-GhostScript would be ambiguous (which I think may be artofcode's >> > intention) and could apply to most of these competing versions so I >> > wouldn't use that name for any of them. >> > >> Yes, that was the reason about my comment about it beeing real >> confusing, >> so I agree on not having any GPL-version. > > > Ok, so let me see if I got this straight: > > There are currently three variants of Ghostscript: > * ESP-Ghostscript > * GNU-Ghostscript > * Artofcode-Ghostscript > Actually there are four(!) versions of Ghostscript. Artofcode manages two versions, one under the AFPL license and one under the GPL license, though the future for the AFPL licensed version is uncertain. > As far as I understand, these are mostly interchangeable (eg, for > using with Latex) except that some CUPS stuff requires ESP-Ghostscript > specifically. > Is this still the case? I really don't know but I have got the idea that GNU Ghostscript now includes this stuff as well. > So, I agree, let's drop the unprefixed name Ghostscript from packages > and recipes as it is too ambiguous. We could have it in the > compatibility list file of the Scripts package, so that when the > variant is not relevant, a Dependencies file can specify Ghostscript > and use any of them. > Ok, but how about making the varitions as suffixes instead, to make it easier to group them? I know this may break things unless all cases are covered, but we shall rename them anyway, we can use this opportunity to select the names we would like to have. > (This makes me think that when a recipe/package is not found to > fulfill a missing dependency, then the compatiblity list should be > looked for alternatives. Don't know if this is already implemented.) > Don't think it's implemented, but it's an idea. Priorities as the order the apps are listed? -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
