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

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

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:29:26PM +0100, Till Kamppeter wrote:
On 01/24/2011 08:47 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
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.

I am the maintainer of the OpenPrinting web site and no one asked for write access to the IJS page when the site got moved to a new server mid-2006. So from then on it is definitely not maintained any more on the OpenPrinting web site.

Heh.  I am convinced! :-)

The Ghostscript maintainers did small changes (bug fixes, make it build under Windows, ...). As only they do maintenance work on it I am fine with the maintained source code of IJS being the ijs/ directory of Ghostscript. The IJS web page on OpenPrinting clearly tells that the officially maintained source code is in Ghostscript.

When those options are tried, we can discuss if perhaps we shoulf try convince Ghostscript developers to release their library as separate tarballs.

So please ask them via IRC, channel #ghostscript on Freenode or report a bug/feature request (product: Ghostscript, component: printer driver) on http://bugs.ghostscript.com/. If IJS does not get separated my suggesstion for best maintainability is to let the libijs* packages being binary packages of the ghostscript source package.

I'd let Debian ijs package maintainer do that - if in agreement that this is a sensible approach.

We (as in ghostscript maintainer and/or Printing Team) cannot hijack ijs package, so need to wait for some response from ijs package maintainer.

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 ;-)


Filing a bugreport also helps in resolving if perhaps ijs package maintainer might be MIA...

- 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: