Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:47:17 +0900 From: KATO Tsuguru <tkato432@yahoo.com> To: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why do we have both ghostscript-gpl and ghostscript-gnu? Message-ID: <20041230224717.369884e6.tkato432@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <41D3F64A.4000608@redesjm.local> References: <20041229222343.GA71433@dragon.nuxi.com> <41D3BA59.9060505@redesjm.local> <20041230212629.3d8291e1.tkato432@yahoo.com> <41D3F64A.4000608@redesjm.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:36:26 +0100 Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> wrote: > My plans are make the cups device with any gs you chose, and limit the > cups-pstoraster port only to de cups config/scripts. Similar attempt was once proposed and then declined. There are many people who dislike huge cups-base package to be added to default dependency of ghostscript package. On the other hand, it's sorrowful if every CUPS user must rebuild ghostscript from ports tree. Parhups the most easy way to resolve CUPS issue would be splitting cups-pstoraster port to -gnu and -gpl. It isn't so elegant solution, though.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041230224717.369884e6.tkato432>