From owner-freebsd-ports  Sun Jun 15 10:26:45 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA18142
          for ports-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from agora.rdrop.com (root@agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA18137
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alpha.xerox.com (alpha.Xerox.COM [13.1.64.93])
	by agora.rdrop.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA25414
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crevenia.parc.xerox.com ([13.2.116.11]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <15087(5)>; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:24:53 PDT
Received: from localhost by crevenia.parc.xerox.com with SMTP id <177512>; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:24:50 -0700
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com, ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Depending on ghostscript
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 15 Jun 97 04:13:12 PDT."
             <199706151113.EAA04816@blimp.mimi.com> 
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:24:43 PDT
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <97Jun15.102450pdt.177512@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) wrote:
>People complained about the ghostview package pulling in an unwanted
>version of ghostscript, so the dependency was removed.  Same for gv.

But that applies to all the ports that depend on ghostscript.  We had
this discussion when I was trying to decide what to do about wb, and
decided that

RUN_DEPENDS=	gs:${PORTSDIR}/print/ghostscript4

was the best thing to do, since it would leave existing versions of
gs there but bring in the newest if there's nothing installed.  Is
this not the case?

  Bill