Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:33:30 +0200 From: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de> To: Tilman Linneweh <arved@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: A different approach for the ghostscript problem Message-ID: <3F24533A.3060004@liwing.de> In-Reply-To: <20030727221222.GA93833@huckfinn.arved.de> References: <200307272105.h6RL5BTo000730@helo.liwing.de> <20030727221222.GA93833@huckfinn.arved.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28.07.2003 00:12, Tilman Linneweh wrote:
> * Jens Rehsack [So, 27 Jul 2003 at 23:59 GMT]:
>>>Description:
>> This patch allows the admin of the machine to choose either
>> print/ghostscript-gnu or print/ghostscript-afpl
>
> Just picking a random PR.
> Instead of adding knobs to every port, a more
> generic solution might be appropriate, e.g. a bsd.port.mk patch.
>
>
> Oh, and I am not the first one with this idea.
>
> PR 36112 by lev tries to introduce a IMHO better solution.
I thought about including WITHOUT_X11 in any of the
changes, but
a) I want to see the generic response of the port
maintainers,
b) Playing aroung (because having problem to create
useful and senseful patch, because it seems a little
bit more complecated) with print/cups-pstoraster
c) wasn't sure to use Mk/bsd.port.mk or a solution like
lang/php4 has: print/ghostscript/bsd.ghostschript.mk,
maybe with some more common in a Makefile for
all ghostscript derivates ...
Best,
Jens
PS: Your suggestions are very welcome - you can mail me!
in german, too :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F24533A.3060004>