This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Ghostscript packaging for X11, non-X11 versions
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 12:47:28PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 06:57:23AM -0700, Dario Alcocer wrote:
> >Are there any guidelines or suggestions regarding packaging
> >source, patches and binaries for programs (like Ghostscript)
> >that can be built for either Cygwin or Cygwin/XFree86?
> >Unless I hear a very compelling reason to do otherwise, I'm
> >planning on releasing three binary packages and a single
> >source package:
> That sounds perfect to me. The only open issue is where to
> install the X11 versions of stuff. I'd been strongly suggesting
> that all X applications go into /usr/X11R6/bin but I suspect
> that this rule may not have been followed.
Ok, that's what I'll do, it seems reasonable to me.
> Others have pointed out that distributions like Red Hat just put
> the X apps directly into /usr/bin, leaving /usr/X11R6/bin for
> the actual XFree86 distribution.
Yeah, but I don't know if it's recommended. I wonder what the
hierarchical filesystem standard says about this. I'll have to
read up on this.
> Regardless of this, I think it still makes sense to put X apps in
> the X-specific bin directory.
Yes, I see your point. I'll make sure that any X11-specific for
ghostscript is put in /usr/X11R6.
> Of course, then there is my other rule that X apps live in the
> release/XFree86 hierarchy. I guess I should amend this rule to
> mean "strictly X apps". It wouldn't make sense to scatter your
> distribution into different directories when they would nicely
> fall into one ghostscript directory and subdirectories.
Well, this would be the examples and the font files. I'm leaning
to leaving these in /usr/share/ghostscript.
BTW, thanks for the input, I really appreciate your time, especially
given your project workload :-)
Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc.
email@example.com -- http://www.helixdigital.com