ghostscript commits (fix of back out request)

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 05:31:26PM +0900, KATO Tsuguru wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:33:09 -0700
> Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> 
> > As far as I can tell, just having the package installed doesn't bring
> > any new features to the system unless you choose to configure your
> > system to use CUPS for printing instead of the default lpr.  As such,
> > I think it's something that should be off by default.
> 
> Well, necessary part of CUPS is just the headers and
> shared libraries in print/cups-base. print/cups-lpr
> isn't required unless you really want to print with
> entire CUPS environment. You normally don't have to
> aware existence of CUPS and work with default lpr.

But cups-base is an entirely useless package on a system that does is
not configured to use CUPS (i.e. most FreeBSD systems).  Installing it
is useless bloat for most people.  It would be as if we installed
GNOME libraries as part of the FreeBSD base system just in case
someone wanted to run GNOME (and given how commonly used ghostscript
is, this analogy is not all far-fetched in scope) - it wouldn't affect
anything, but it's just not a good idea.

> > I recommend making !CUPS the default, and adding a WITH_CUPS knob, or
> > a ghostscript-gnu-cups slave port if necessary.
> 
> As far as the difference is only dependency of one
> or two shared libraries, increasing numbers of slave
> ports might be a bad idea for me. In addtion, I
> personally think that shared library support shouldn't
> be disabled by default if there is no paticular reason.

I'd much rather add an extra port than make thousands of FreeBSD users
install a port they do not need.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20030608/ed59268d/attachment.bin