Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 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. Correct, and I didn't like it before. > 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. For me it is a problem. You can build a machine without a graphics card, but need to have XFree86-Mesa-libGL installed if you want to use ghostscript. (@Michael) There is a seperate package for gsx, called ghostscript-gtk, but the only file in this package is gsx itself. I see no problem that *this* package depends on gtk and gdk-pixbuf, but why ghostscript? > > 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. I don't think that it is a ghostscript dependency. At least the ghostscript ./configure can be instructed to not use X11 at all, but I didn't look at Red Hat's patches, the ghostscript.spec is really ugly. I think I have to consider other distributions for text-only servers. Regards, Andreas
