Removal of print/ghostscript*-nox11
wblock at wonkity.com
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