On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 14:34, Andreas Mueller wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 11:28, Tim Waugh wrote: > > > I think this is something I'm going to have to let the Fedora > > > Legacy project address if need be -- but I do wish that I hadn't > > > started down this path in the first place. > > > > > > Sorry for the mess. > > > > Which mess? > > > > ghostscript/FC2 requires gtk2 and gdk_pixbuf2, ghostscript/FC1 > > requires their gtk1 counterparts, where is the problem? > > Think of a small text-only server with hylafax. Hylafax needs > ghostscript. And ghostscript pulls in urw-fonts, urw-fonts > needs /usr/X11R6/bin/mkfontscale (provided by XFree86-font-utils) -> > libXfont.so.1 (provided by XFree86-libs) -> freetype. This is just > *one* path of dependencies. The effect is that I don't have a text-only > server, now I have a lot of X stuff that I don't want. That's what you already had *before* this new rpm. The new rpm added gdk-pixbuf and gtk+. Yes, this adds some more packages and wastes more disk space, but ... is it really important? Most of the packages required by gdk-pixbuf/gtk+ already are required elsewhere, so, though it is not nice, this should not be an actual problem. > And the next > logical step is to install gtk+ and gdk-pixbuf? No, definitely not - As I said above, it isn't nice. My point is elsewhere: ghostscript for FC2 already depends on gtk2 (which comprises gdk-pixbuf-2). So if you consider the ghostscript update pulling-in gtk+ to be a packaging regression, then this regression had happened before the FC1/update package and also is present in FC2. => either there is a general packaging bug in both FC1/updates and FC2+, and packaging regression that needs to be addressed, or these dependencies are the nominal ghostscript dependencies you have got to learn to live with. Ralf
