Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 18 December 2014 at 17:57, Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2014-12-18 20:20 GMT+03:00 Tim Waugh <twa...@redhat.com>:
>>
>>> I could package it in its own sub-package, ghostscript-x11, but that
>>> might be a bit surprising to people who expect 'ghostscript' to have an
>>> x11alpha driver.
>>>
>>> Alternatively I could move everything else from ghostscript to a new
>>> sub-package ghostscript-base, and have 'ghostscript' (i.e. just the
>>> X11.so plugin) require ghostscript-base (i.e. everything else).
>>
>> The latter approach (ghostscript depending on *-core and *-x11/gui) is
>> better. it won't break any installations while providing enough
>> flexibility for the new ones.
>
> ... but has the downside that many packages will need to change their
> Requires from ghostscript to ghostscript-core to prevent them from
> pulling in the X stack.
That strikes me as the right way round. If you don't change your requires,
you still get what you currently get. If you want to trim them, you change
to ghostscript-core.
--
Paul Flo Williams
http://hisdeedsaredust.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
