Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:46:45 -0700 From: Stephen Hurd <shurd@sasktel.net> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r358704 - head/Mk Message-ID: <53A5EF35.3020702@sasktel.net> In-Reply-To: <3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62@adamw.org> References: <201406211423.s5LENFt4010937@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgmCpgvW7w20Y7sfL5%2B2hDWU=C4OpidV0_AjzndYcBvaTA@mail.gmail.com> <3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adam Weinberger wrote: > On 21 Jun, 2014, at 11:57, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> On 21 June 2014 07:23, Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> -GHOSTSCRIPT_DESC?= Ghostscript PDF support >>> +GHOSTSCRIPT_DESC?= Ghostscript support >> This description is now meaningless. Can you propose a better alternative? > It’s probably better to be vague and meaningless than wrong. Someone will think of a more accurate descriptor, but in the meantime it’s better not to have an inaccurate one. Except that Ghostscript is a Postscript and PDF rasterizer. "Ghostscript PDF/PS support" is not in any way inaccurate (though I agree that "Ghostscript PDF support" is.) While it supports a great deal of output formats, it supports a very small number of input formats. Of course, "PS" isn't universally understood anymore, some maybe "PostScript and PDF handing via Ghostscript" would be better... or "Use Ghostscript for PDF and Postscript". I'm not even sure that Ghostscript needs to be repeated in the description since the option name is shown. Possibly even "for PostScript and PDF rasterization" would be best. Quite often the word following the option name on the line is the option name with different casing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53A5EF35.3020702>