> 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 packages. This has a lot of advantages, because it means that users are no longer responsible for notifying fink about something which is present on their system. 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 choice about which of several alternative packages to pick, and may find that system-tetex is selected rather than tetex. But system-tetex won't install in that case, unless the user happens to have an external tetex installation. The main packages which would be affected at this point are system-tetex and system-ghostscript. They are a bit tricky, because the "external" installations typically go in /usr/local. But we could conceivably test for them. -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
