Re: Why no-X11 ghostscript?

["Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>]

Rodrigo Medina wrote:
> On 2005/12/28 18:08:11,  Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>
>
> > Rodrigo Medina wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > 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.
> > > Bye
> > > Happy holidays
> > > R.M.
>
>
> > 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
> without
> 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 gs.no-x.exe.
> 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
> gs.no-x.exe 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                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/