Ghostscript 8.61

[Anthony Michael Agelastos]

On Dec 2, 2007, at 3:29 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2007, at 18:30, Anthony Michael Agelastos wrote:
>
>> I just noticed the following as I updated my installation.
>>
>> --->  Fetching ghostscript
>> --->  Attempting to fetch ghostscript-8.61.tar.gz from http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ghostscript
>> --->  Verifying checksum(s) for ghostscript
>> --->  Extracting ghostscript
>> --->  Applying patches to ghostscript
>> --->  Configuring ghostscript
>> --->  Building ghostscript
>> --->  Staging ghostscript into destroot
>> Warning: ghostscript requests to install files outside the common  
>> directory structure!
>> --->  Deactivating ghostscript 8.60_0
>> --->  Installing ghostscript 8.61_0
>>
>> The following files have been renamed (and should be removed):
>>    /private/etc/cups/pstoraster.convs -> /private/etc/cups/ 
>> pstoraster.convs.old
>>    /usr/libexec/cups/filter/pstopxl -> /usr/libexec/cups/filter/ 
>> pstopxl.old
>>    /usr/libexec/cups/filter/pstoraster -> /usr/libexec/cups/filter/ 
>> pstoraster.old
>>    /usr/share/cups/model/pxlcolor.ppd -> /usr/share/cups/model/ 
>> pxlcolor.ppd.old
>>    /usr/share/cups/model/pxlmono.ppd -> /usr/share/cups/model/ 
>> pxlmono.ppd.old
>>
>> --->  Activating ghostscript 8.61_0
>> --->  Cleaning ghostscript
>>
>> This has prompted me to ask a few questions, which I have  
>> enumerated below. Thank you for your assistance in helping me  
>> answer these.
>>
>> 1) What files has this port installed outside of the common  
>> directory structure?
>
> You can find out what files it installs by using "port contents  
> ghostscript". It looks like it's these files:
>
>  /private/etc/cups/pstoraster.convs
>  /usr/libexec/cups/filter/pstopxl
>  /usr/libexec/cups/filter/pstoraster
>  /usr/share/cups/model/pxlcolor.ppd
>  /usr/share/cups/model/pxlmono.ppd
>
>> 2) If I `sudo port uninstall ghostscript`, will it put things back  
>> to how they were prior to this upgrade (will it fix any of the  
>> Apple files/programs/directories that the port modified in 1))?
>
> If the port modified any Apple-provided files, then no. But, no port  
> should be modifying any Apple-provided files. They may merely (as  
> per the message) be installing new files outside the MacPorts  
> prefix. And if so, then yes, "port uninstall" will uninstall those  
> files also.

I agree with you in that no port should be modifying any Apple- 
provided files, however when I see my message above that renamed 5  
files (the same files shown with `port contents ghostscript`) to $ 
{file}.old, it makes me think that the *.old files are the Apple- 
provided ones. And, if this is the case, I want to know about it so if  
I ever `port uninstall ghostscript`, I know what needs to be done.

>
>
>> 3) What does the "no_cups" variant do?
>
> Probably installs ghostscript without support for CUPS (the Common  
> Unix Printing Solution). "port variants ghostscript" says so. Not  
> sure what exactly that entails for ghostscript. But it sounds like  
> it might entail not installing things outside the MacPorts prefix.  
> Which would be good, especially if you do not plan to use the CUPS  
> features of ghostscript, whatever those might be. (Perhaps the  
> maintainer can enlighten us.)
I would like further enlightenment on this variant as well. The  
"ghostscript" port was installed as a dependency on my machine. If  
this variant will allow me to install it without modifying any Apple- 
related files, I would prefer it.

Thank you for your reply.