Packaging ghostscript's X11 support separately

Paul Flo Williams paul at
Thu Dec 18 20:38:02 UTC 2014

Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> 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.

That strikes me as the right way round. If you don't change your requires,
you still get what you currently get. If you want to trim them, you change
to ghostscript-core.

Paul Flo Williams

More information about the devel mailing list