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

Re: Provide libijs packages as a binary package of Ghostscript?

Hi Till (and others),

I took the liberty of moving this conversation to the Debian Printing Team and cc ijs package maintainer.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:12:31PM +0100, Till Kamppeter wrote:
as written on


the current head of development of the IJS code is in Ghostscript and not on OpenPrinting.

So to keep the binary packages

- libijs-0.35
- libijs-dev

maintained with the up-to-date source code I suggest to remove the "ijs" source package from Debian and build the IJS library using the ijs/ directory of Ghostscript (naturally then not removing it from Ghostscript when repackaging the source tarball).

See also



I dislike treating Ghostscript as source of multiple libraries!

I think that a) ijs package should cherry-pick from ghostscript sources (manually, from upstream tarballs and/or VCS), and b) ijs package maintainers (or anyone, really - perhaps yourself?) verify if current ijs upstream truly is dead or have sane reason to not adopt what is currently shipped with ghostscript. When those options are tried, we can discuss if perhaps we shoulf try convince Ghostscript developers to release their library as separate tarballs.

As a related note, I recommend ijs package maintainer to join the Debian Printing Team to ease coordination like this. :-)

If this email conversation itself does not cause action from ijs package maintainers, I suggest filing a bugreport against ijs to formally raise awareness on those sources supposedly lacking behind. Ideally with those same recommendations as I suggest above, but if you do the bugfiling then obviously you get to influence in what direction you prefer ;-)

Kind regards,

 - Jonas

  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: