On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:15:10PM +0900, SASANO Takayoshi wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> > I wouldn't object to including g{pcl6,xps,pdl} but why include gpdf?
> > The gs binary includes a pdf interpreter already.
> 
> Simply GhostPDL has GhostPDF. Not many but some people who downloaded
> GhostPDF package needs it contains GhostPDF. So I included it.
> 
> And I thought providing separate packages like GhostPCL and GhostXPS
> takes many costs to maintain.
> 
> > Anyone want to weigh in on this, and also on the question whether to include
> > them in the existing port vs. making a new one?
> 
> I consider how the GhostPDL package should be, appending binaries
> that needs GhostPDL from existing GhostScript. 
> 
> How about to GhostPDL package that have only following files?
> (and GhostPDF requires GhostScript)

Not sure what you folks mean with "another package".  A subpackage?
Or another port, maybe?  There are already 3 FLAVORS in the
ghostscript/gnu port and I'm not sure this would mix well with
MULTI_PACKAGES.  Another port would probably need some tweaks for the
shared libs.  Just putting everything inside the same package seems
easier.

Whatever solution is taken, the *.so and *.so.18 files below should be
removed from the PLIST and resulting package; see post-install.

> bin/gpcl6
> bin/gpdl
> bin/gxps
> include/ghostscript/plapi.h
> lib/libgpcl6.so
> lib/libgpcl6.so.18
> lib/libgpcl6.so.${LIBgpcl6_VERSION}
> lib/libgpdl.so
> lib/libgpdl.so.18
> lib/libgpdl.so.${LIBgpdl_VERSION}
> lib/libgxps.so
> lib/libgxps.so.18
> lib/libgxps.so.${LIBgxps_VERSION}
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> SASANO Takayoshi (JG1UAA) <uaa@mx5.nisiq.net>
> 

-- 
jca