[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [biebl@debian.org: Plans for gs-esp / gs-gpl / gs-afpl in lenny?]

I have worked out the packaging of the current "ghostscript" Ubuntu package with the Debian maintainer of Ghostscript, Masayuki Hatta. We agreed especially on the name "ghostscript" because it is much easier for search functions to find "ghostscript" than to find "gs".

"ghostscript" is obsoleting all old Ghostscript flavors: gs-esp, gs-gpl, gs-afpl, ... as it unifies all their special characteristics: Totally free software, latest and greatest Ghostscript developemnt, CUPS, IJS, and OpenPrinting Vector interfaces, all built-in and UPP drivers.

So for Debian the easiest solution is simply rebuilding this Ubuntu package.


Matt Zimmerman wrote:


Plans for gs-esp / gs-gpl / gs-afpl in lenny?
Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>
Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:09:05 +0200

Masayuki Hatta <mhatta@grad.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org>, Torsten Landschoff <torsten@debian.org>, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

Hi everyone,

recently ghostscript 8.60 was released [1] which is now available under
the GPL.
The features of ESP Ghostscript have been merged into Ghostscript GPL
and the upstream of gs-esp has officially declared gs-esp obsolete [2].

The Debian gs-afpl package has been orphaned some time ago [3].

So, my question is, what the plan is for lenny with regard to all these
different gs-* packages.

AFAIK, Ubuntu has introduced a new package called "ghostscript" (as
successor of gs-gpl) which supersedes gs-esp, gs-gpl and gs-afpl and
provides dummy/transitional packages for gs-esp/gs-gpl which depend on
the ghostscript package to ensure a smooth upgrade.

I CCed the gs-* maintainers, because I'm interested to know if they
intend to go the same route or if they have different plans and also if
there is already a prospective time frame for such a "ghostscript" package.


[1] http://www.ghostscript.com/awki
[2] http://www.cups.org/espgs/articles.php?L463
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=393923

Reply to: