On 18 December 2014 at 17:57, Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2014-12-18 20:20 GMT+03:00 Tim Waugh <twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> I could package it in its own sub-package, ghostscript-x11, but that >> might be a bit surprising to people who expect 'ghostscript' to have an >> x11alpha driver. >> >> Alternatively I could move everything else from ghostscript to a new >> sub-package ghostscript-base, and have 'ghostscript' (i.e. just the >> X11.so plugin) require ghostscript-base (i.e. everything else). > > The latter approach (ghostscript depending on *-core and *-x11/gui) is > better. it won't break any installations while providing enough > flexibility for the new ones. ... but has the downside that many packages will need to change their Requires from ghostscript to ghostscript-core to prevent them from pulling in the X stack. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
