[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: ghostscript meta package
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, David Holland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 08:27:27PM +1200, Steven Drake wrote:
> > Does anyone have a problem with changing the way the
> > ghostscript-agpl/ghostscript-gpl is selected to use a meta-package named
> > 'ghostscript' that depends on one of them.
> > This basically reverts the way that ghostscript depends, buildlinks and
> > the gs section of mk/tools/replace.mk work to what they where before
> > the two packages existed (Sorry dholland@).
> What I'd worry about is what version number the meta-package is going
> to have,
I'm unsure about that myself, but heres what I'm going with:
Use 9.05 (this is the version number of ghostscript-gpl), and never increase
the version number just the PKGREVISION, starting with PKGREVISION=4, as
this 1 more that of ghostscript before the agpl update and bumping the
revision whenever ether the gpl or agpl package is update.
This resion for using the above is that the version of the meta package
will never be greater than ether version number of ether of it's possible
dependences (i.e. ghostscript-gpl).
> and what happens to the dependencies when the two packages
> cease to be fully interchangeable. This is bound to happen eventually.
When that happens a package that need the agpl features will have to
depend on ghostscript-agpl directly rather than the meta package (we could
also change mk/tools/replace.mk so that if GHOSTSCRIPT_REQD is greater than
9.05 it uses ghostscript-agpl instead of the meta package).
> I don't think it's going to work.
Possibly, but we can only try it and see if it works.
Main Index |
Thread Index |