Re: ghostscript-8.50 packaging question

2006-02-19 Thread James R. Phillips
OK, I see your point. I would need to verify, however, that the duplicated file names are in fact duplicate files. I guess my main point is that the current package layout may be non-optimal, but that doesn't actually affect the correct installation and operation of the software. Thus I will lik

Re: ghostscript-8.50 packaging question

2006-02-19 Thread Dr. Volker Zell
> James R Phillips writes: > This is a reasonable question. For this release I did not try to change the > structure developed by the previous maintainer, and for which I am aware of no > particular complaints. However, I am willing to try to improve the structure > of the

Re: ghostscript-8.50 packaging question

2006-02-18 Thread James R. Phillips
This is a reasonable question. For this release I did not try to change the structure developed by the previous maintainer, and for which I am aware of no particular complaints. However, I am willing to try to improve the structure of the package for future releases. In particular I wish to move

ghostscript-8.50 packaging question

2006-02-18 Thread Dr. Volker Zell
Wouldn't it be much better to package all the shell scripts from the ghostscript-8.50 package which are now duplicated in both the ghostscript-x11 and the ghostscript package in ghostscript-base and put them below /usr/bin ? Ciao Volker -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscri