On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:05:03 -0400 "Greg Troxel" <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> Perhaps what would be really cool is to subpackage cups-libs so that
> what gs needs is small enough that cups be enabled by default in
> ghostscript.  This is a tough situation; one man's necessary is
> another's bloat.  But ghostscript isn't small - perhaps 14.5M vs cups
> 14M.
>

Yeah, that's kind of where I started out thinking.  But actually I'm not 
that unhappy with the current solution.  Usual usage is to either add 
"cups" as a global option, or not...  Either way it works out ok.

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.