Re: Gs

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

¡Hola!

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> 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.

I went ahead and pushed these two commits, which seem to address the
issue:

  d8eb912 * gnu: Use 'ghostscript-gs' in packages that need the 'gs' command.
  71eba3e * gnu: Add 'ghostscript-gs' and 'ghostscript-gs-with-x'.

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

Yes, we should do that afterwards.

Apologies for the breakage!

Ludo'.