On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Manuel Bouyer wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 04:20:28AM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> > In retrospect i have to say that the idea of renaming the ghostscript most
> > people use and expect was really suboptimal. A gsnoX wouldn't have
> > required all these changes. ;(
> 
> Yes. And I didn't think about this when I saw the change but now I'll have
> to teach my users to use gsx11 instead of gs ... Much harder than fixing
> softwares.
> 
> Can we eventually change this ? (i.e. gs->gsnoX and gsx11->gs) ?
> We could eventually keep gsx11, and just rename gs to gsnoX, so that it's
> at last possible to put a symlink.

	This sounds like a good plan. Do we have the packages that do
	not need the x11 version conditionally depending on either version
	but preferring the non x11 version?

		David/absolute