Bug 50923 - Shouldn't require ttfonts-ja
Summary: Shouldn't require ttfonts-ja
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: ghostscript
Version: 7.3
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tim Waugh
QA Contact: Aaron Brown
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 53660 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2001-08-04 21:44 UTC by Bernhard Rosenkraenzer
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2002-01-10 09:53:46 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.