| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 14/06/12 07:58 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 5 |
> Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 6 |
>> 9'ish consumers. I propose "Enable support for the PostScript |
| 7 |
>> language" |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Perhaps "ps" or "postscript" instead of the implementation-centric |
| 10 |
> "gs" ? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> //Peter |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think based on the consumers described we should keep the flag as |
| 18 |
'gs' as this is primarily for ghostscript-based support and not |
| 19 |
generic postscript capability. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That said, there's only nine of them, and as I can't see that many |
| 22 |
more packages suddenly including support for ghostscript I don't see |
| 23 |
that much of a need in making this flag be global...? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/bOAYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPC9OwD/W0ofi+chYYZ+k5ABo+VfODHs |
| 29 |
F/83jl30ru+iOakp/nkA/Rg+8H6wrNyR/1BAe78T2UfhgMEtGOQy16TA+UrmPrO6 |
| 30 |
=YpRu |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives