Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [Fink-users] system-ghostscript issue.

2004-01-20 Thread Peter O'Gorman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David R. Morrison wrote: | I've been thinking we should try to do something similar with the remaining | system-foo packages, or else scrap them. In fact, they cause quite a bit | of trouble at present: for example, a binary user is often not given a |

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [Fink-users] system-ghostscript issue.

2004-01-20 Thread Andrea Riciputi
Uhm... virtual packages. I'm not sure to know what they are exactly. Where can I find (and learn) something about them? Thanks, Andrea. On 20 Jan 2004, at 22:43, David R. Morrison wrote: There used to exist the opinion that it is not very cumbersome to have two ghostscripts installed, bu

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [Fink-users] system-ghostscript issue.

2004-01-20 Thread David R. Morrison
> There used to exist the opinion that it is not very cumbersome to have > two ghostscripts installed, but I think this should be rethought. Let me offer another point of view on this. Last summer, we introduced virtual packages in Fink which replaced the former system-xfree86 and system-perl pac