[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Gs

From: Andreas Enge
Subject: Re: Gs
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 16:52:20 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)


On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:03:07PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> For the current solution (avoiding a full rebuild), see commit
> 61dc82d9b90d0545739c30bfc33003bd062071f0.  LilyPond could hard-code the
> file name of ‘gsc’.

This looks like too much work to implement for each package separately.
And as a permanent solution, I do not like it.

> Alternately, we could provide a wrapper containing a ‘gs’ symlink.

This would be one option. Or we could add another package, corresponding
to the previous definition, that we would use only as an input to the
packages in core-updates that do not build right now. This solution could
be implemented using copy-paste and not take much time. I would then also
remove the ad-hoc lilypond patching.

Then after core-updates is merged, we could add the gs->gsc link to our
ghostscript packages.

What do you think?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]