"Jonas Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, since GNU Ghostscript call themself GNU-Ghostscript, would it be > wrong to name that recipe to just GNU-Ghostscript and keep Ghostscript as > the name for the artofcode GPL-version? Or should they be named > GNU-Ghostscript and GPL-Ghostscript respectively (like that wouldn't be > confusing).
You are in a maze of twisty GhostScript versions, all different. Exits are rename, rename or rename. We already have ESP-GhostScript, so I think we should use GhostScript (GNU-Ghostscript was already using that) and artofcode-Ghostscript with a possible AFPL-Ghostscript if that ever releases again (I'm confused about the plan for it). Second-best is to rename the GNU one to GNU-GhostScript, call the ex-AFPL one artofcode-Ghostscript and blacklist GhostScript as ambiguous. Maybe we could even include a 'don't use this, use one of these' recipe or would that break stuff? GPL-GhostScript would be ambiguous (which I think may be artofcode's intention) and could apply to most of these competing versions so I wouldn't use that name for any of them. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker, developer of koha, debian, gobo, gnustep, various mail and web s/w. Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
