On 3/27/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:12:57 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On 3/27/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:42:36 +0200, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > 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). > >> > > >> It's the artofcode GPL-version that has the name 'Ghostscript', not the > >> GNU-version, so we have to rename all of the recipes and the best thing > >> would probably be to have no version use just 'Ghostscript'. But I was > >> thinking, to make the versions easier to group, perhaps when listing, > >> wouldn't it be better to have the type/version as a suffix instead of > >> prefix, and by that those will be listed side by side? > >> > >> > 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. > >> > > >> Yes, that was the reason about my comment about it beeing real > >> confusing, > >> so I agree on not having any GPL-version. > > > > > > Ok, so let me see if I got this straight: > > > > There are currently three variants of Ghostscript: > > * ESP-Ghostscript > > * GNU-Ghostscript > > * Artofcode-Ghostscript > > > Actually there are four(!) versions of Ghostscript. Artofcode manages two > versions, one under the AFPL license and one under the GPL license, though > the future for the AFPL licensed version is uncertain.
Then how about: * ESP-Ghostscript * GNU-Ghostscript * Artofcode-Ghostscript * AFPL-Ghostscript > > As far as I understand, these are mostly interchangeable (eg, for > > using with Latex) except that some CUPS stuff requires ESP-Ghostscript > > specifically. > > > Is this still the case? I really don't know but I have got the idea that > GNU Ghostscript now includes this stuff as well. > > > So, I agree, let's drop the unprefixed name Ghostscript from packages > > and recipes as it is too ambiguous. We could have it in the > > compatibility list file of the Scripts package, so that when the > > variant is not relevant, a Dependencies file can specify Ghostscript > > and use any of them. > > > Ok, but how about making the varitions as suffixes instead, to make it > easier to group them? I know this may break things unless all cases are > covered, but we shall rename them anyway, we can use this opportunity to > select the names we would like to have. As in "Ghostscript-GNU", etc? Personally, I don't like it. And I don't think encoding the variants in version numbers as in "Ghostscript 1.2.3-gnu" is an option because incompatibility is always a risk in forks and it would be impractical to specify them nicely in dependencies files. > > (This makes me think that when a recipe/package is not found to > > fulfill a missing dependency, then the compatiblity list should be > > looked for alternatives. Don't know if this is already implemented.) > > > Don't think it's implemented, but it's an idea. Priorities as the order > the apps are listed? Could be. If they are really compatible then any would work, so the order shouldn't be that important. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
