Packaging ghostscript's X11 support separately

Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood at
Thu Dec 18 19:56:39 UTC 2014

On 18 December 2014 at 17:57, Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at> wrote:
> 2014-12-18 20:20 GMT+03:00 Tim Waugh <twaugh at>:
>> I could package it in its own sub-package, ghostscript-x11, but that
>> might be a bit surprising to people who expect 'ghostscript' to have an
>> x11alpha driver.
>> Alternatively I could move everything else from ghostscript to a new
>> sub-package ghostscript-base, and have 'ghostscript' (i.e. just the
>> plugin) require ghostscript-base (i.e. everything else).
> The latter approach (ghostscript depending on *-core and *-x11/gui) is
> better. it won't break any installations while providing enough
> flexibility for the new ones.

... but has the downside that many packages will need to change their
Requires from ghostscript to ghostscript-core to prevent them from
pulling in the X stack.

More information about the devel mailing list