On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:42:36 +0200, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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. > Just to update on the names and what was selected in the end (for those that doesn't read the recipes-list). Artofcode's AFPL version was kept as is, i.e. AFPL-Ghostscript. The old "clean" 'Ghostscript' version was infact the Artofcode's GPL licensed version, so that has been renamed to Artofcode-Ghostscript and finally the GNU Ghostscript was created (there existed no recipe for this before) and was given the name GNU-Ghostscript. Hope that makes things clear. :) -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
