Re: Why no-X11 ghostscript?

["Rodrigo Medina" <rodmedina at cantv dot net>]

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

Bye

Happy New Year

R.M.


--
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/