Bug 50923

Summary:	Shouldn't require ttfonts-ja
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero>
Component:	ghostscript	Assignee:	Tim Waugh <twaugh>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Aaron Brown <abrown>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	7.3	CC:	chris.ricker, shishz
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2002-01-10 09:53:46 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2001-08-04 21:44:53 UTC

ghostscript requires ttfonts-ja - why? ghostscript is perfectly usable
without it if you don't ever plan to print japanese text (like maybe 90% of
our users).

Comment 1 Crutcher Dunnavant 2001-08-09 02:34:32 UTC

I dont care if you dont want to print japanese. Ghostscript is compiled needing
those fonts. We had this discussion for 7.1, I am not changing it.

Comment 2 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2001-08-09 07:35:39 UTC

No it isn't. Try for yourself:

- rpm -e --nodeps ttfonts-ja
- print any non-Japanese document
- watch it working.

Comment 3 Chris Ricker 2001-11-01 15:27:24 UTC

I definitely agree with Bero.  Ghostscript works just fine w/o ttfonts-ja, and
now that there's a separate Japanese disc-1 there's no reason not to make a
ghostscript-ja that depends on ttfonts-ja if you absolutely feel that it's
necessary.

I just did an up2date.  It snarfed down the ghostscript from errata.  It then
snarfed down an absofsckinglutely useless 9 megs ttfonts-ja rpm for me which I
promptly rpm'ed -e --nodeps after the ghostscript update....  It's wasting my
space, and it's wasting RH's bandwidth and my bandwidth to have this dependency
which, AFAIK, has no technical basis.

Comment 4 Alejandro Gonzalez Hernandez - Imoq 2001-12-03 22:06:32 UTC

Downloading 9 megs at 56K can be soooo sloooooooooooooooooooooowwwww!

I would really appreciate to get this fixed.

Comment 5 Tim Waugh 2002-01-10 09:53:41 UTC

*** Bug 53660 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2002-01-21 12:39:40 UTC

Fixed in 6.52-1