Removal of print/ghostscript*-nox11

Warren Block wblock at
Thu Aug 20 20:10:25 UTC 2015

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Hiroki Sato wrote:

> Plan A: Just remove print/ghostscript*-nox11.
>  Currently ghostscript depends on X11 libraries of ice, sm, x11,
>  xext, and xt.  While one can still eliminate these dependency by
>  disabling X11 in PORT_OPTIONS, the pre-complied packages always
>  depend on them.
>  Pros: Simple.
>  Cons: GS always depends on the X11 libraries.
> Plan B: Remove print/ghostscript*-nox11 and split the X11-dependent
>         part of print/ghostscript9 into another port.
>  Ghostscript can be built into two parts; one is a part without X11
>  libraries and another is a shared library for X11-dependent
>  functionality.  GS will find the shared library and transparently
>  enable x11* devices only when available.  So we can split
>  ghostscript ports into base and X11 part like this:
>   print/ghostscript9-base: no X11 dependency
>   print/ghostscript9-x11:  installs the shared library only
>  Ports which require ghostscript can safely depend on
>  ghostscript9-base regardless of X11 support.  If they need X11
>  support in GS (print/gv, for example), USES=ghostscript:x11 picks up
>  ghostscript9-x11 as an additional dependency.
>  Pros: Minimal dependency.
>  Cons: People may confuse what -base and -x11 mean and which package
>        should be installed when they want ghostscript.
> I have created patches for the both and confirmed technical
> feasibility but still wondering which looks better to people who are
> using ghostscript.  Any comments and/or questions are welcome.

Plan B sounds better to me.  Confusion might be reduced by giving it a 
name that suggests it is an additional component rather than an 
alternate version of ghostscript.  Maybe ghostscript9-x11libs or 
ghostscript9-xlibsupport or something like that?

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list