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.

--
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
--