I have written a system-ghostscript package, but I am undecided about whether it should be included in fink or not.
As some of you know, there is a widely-used teTeX distribution (which accompanies the program TeXShop), and we support this as an alternative with fink's system-tetex package. The installer which is used for this teTeX distribution also installs a copy of ghostscript 6.01 in /usr/local, and there have been periodic requests from users for a system-ghostscript package that recognizes this installation. The package I wrote sets up lots of symbolic links: each of the executables is individually linked from its location in /usr/local/bin to /sw/bin; each of the man pages is individually linked from its location in /usr/local/man/man1 to /sw/share/man/man1; and the rest of ghostscript is linked directory by directory from /usr/local/share/ghostscript to appropriate places in the fink hierarchy. This would certainly be convenient for users who have installed teTeX and ghostscript together. The question is, though: is this setting a bad precedent? We certainly don't want to have lots of fink packages which set up symbolic links to things that were installed within /usr/local by some other installation method. I won't submit the package until I've gotten some feedback on this. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
