This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Why no-X11 ghostscript?

Rodrigo Medina wrote:
On 2005/12/28 18:08:11, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:

Rodrigo Medina wrote:

If I am not mistaken, gs-X11 does everything that gs-no-X11 does, then
why distributing gs-no-X11 at all? A lot problems may arise due to the
presence of two different programs with the same name.
Of course all the programs of the package should go into /bin.
Happy holidays

Are you suggesting that gs-no-X11 requires X11?  If so, that's a bug.  If
not, should we assume your question is rhetorical?

As the gs-no-X11 does something that gs-X11 does no do, that is it works
X11 DLLs, my question was not rhetorical, it was stupid. Nevertheless that
does not
solve the problem of the conflict between the two programs. I suggest doing
the following:

1- Having a unique ghostscript package,  with both gs-x.exe and
2- Install all executables, including both gs programs in /bin.
3- If X11 is installed then copy gs-x.exe to gs.exe, otherwise copy to gs.exe

Yes, we've been over this ground before, have we not? OK, you're coming at it from a slightly different perspective. But if we're making suggestions on how to handle the case where both are installed, wouldn't leveraging the alternatives package scripts be a better approach?

Larry Hall                    
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]