Subject: pkgsrc/print/ghostscript and cups
To: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 10/24/2007 02:05:45
Greg Troxel writes:
> David Sainty <David.Sainty@dtsp.co.nz> writes:
> > For binary packages I think the answer is that cups should be globally
> > enabled in binary builds so that people that want it can use it.
> As far as I know we don't have list of options to be globally enabled in
> bulk builds; they use the default options for each package. So, perhaps
> ghostscript should have cups in PKG_SUGGESTED_OPTIONS. The problem with
> this is that then everyone who wants ghostscript ends up with cups.
> (I realize that people building from source can tweak options and avoid
> this, and hence to me the discussion is about the binary bulk builds.)
I'm not sure ghostscript is special in this regard though? If we
think that "cups" support is important enough in "ghostscript",
doesn't that suggest that we should make it the default everywhere
(That might be more palatable if the cups libraries are separated from
the rest of cups)
> >> The one thing I think might sway it is that it might be nice for
> >> print/cups to have a default "ghostscript" option... That would
> >> require a cups-lib.
> We could solve this by having print/cups stay lean and print/cups-all
> (need a better name) depend on ghostscript, ijs, and whatever else
> people might want. It might only serve as a clue and not get used, but
> that would be ok.
You're right, that's a good solution.