Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/12/28/21:34:13
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/
- Raw text -