Re: ghostscript & agpl

[David Sainty <dave%dtsp.co.nz@localhost>]

On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 08:54 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:

> > (1)
> >    AGPL ghostscript 9.07 as print/ghostscript
> >    GPL ghostscript 9.05 as print/ghostscript905
> >
> > (2)
> >    AGPL ghostscript 9.07 as print/ghostscript
> >    GPL ghostscript 9.05 as print/ghostscript-gpl
> >
> > (3)
> >    AGPL ghostscript 9.07 as print/ghostscript-agpl
> >    GPL ghostscript 9.05 as print/ghostscript
> 

> (4)
>     AGPL ghostscript 9.07 as print/ghostscript-agpl
>     GPL ghostscript 9.05 as print/ghostscript-gpl
> 

Whilst not necessarily a vote, I will say that unless you're a user
that's tracking the reason for decisions in Pkgsrc, having a default
"ghostscript" and then another "ghostscript-xxx" can be confusing,
because it's not clear which one you want - does one have extra
features? Is one deprecated?

Tentatively, I'd say that having two packages that are both explicitly
flagged with the key difference (I.e. suggestion 4) is less confusing.

> with no package 'ghostscript', so that people will have to make an
> intentional choice.  With (2), though, if they have put AGPL in
> ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, updating will just work (and then it's the right
> answer, since it's newer), and if they haven't, they'll get a license
> fail.  We can put a comment there

Or possibly a meta-package "ghostscript" that installs
GHOSTSCRIPT_DEFAULT?

(meta-packages aren't confusing, because it's clear that they are
meta-packages.  It's a good place to document the options...)