> 2) the "ghostscript Provides gs" is wrong because ghostscript does not > provide the full functionality of gs: it is missing the x11 output > device support
... > However 2) is something that should be fixed in the new ghostscript > packages. IMO ghostscript-x should be providing gs, gs-esp and gs-gpl, and > not ghostscript. If that had been the case, I would not have been allowed > to remove ghostscript-x. I like this idea myself. But would like to hear from the maintainers. Also, Is it fine if a package depends/recommends/suggests the gs package? or should the maintainers remove the dependency on gs package completely and explicitly depend upon ghostscript or ghostscript-x? thanks raju -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
