Hi: I was checking out ghostscript and there are 4 different packages in the wild providing the same functionality.
* AFPL Ghostscript 8.51 <ftp://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/AFPL/>: This is the official release from Artifex which has restrictions on re-distribution and commercial use. * GPL Ghostscript 8.15 <ftp://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/GPL/>: This is the official GPL release from Artifex. Basically same as AFPL but is released at least one year after the AFPL release. * GNU Ghostscript 8.16 <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/>: This is the newly created and maintained package from GNU. GNU and Artifex parted ways a year or so back. * ESP Ghostscript 7.07.1 <ftp://ftp.easysw.com/pub/ghostscript>: This is the release from Easy Software that includes pstoraster. It is based on GNU Ghostscript, don't know if future releases will be based on GNU or GPL Ghostscript. [RFC 1] The BLFS instructions state that the pstoraster patch cannot be applied to AFPL Ghostscript. This seems to be incorrect. The AFPL only restricts redistribution, so patching the software and using it internally is allowed (though the current pstoraster patch from Easy Software does not work because of incompatible changes between AFPL Ghostscript 8.1x and 8.5x). I am planning to change the wording of the incorrect note in the Book. [RFC 2] I would like to propose inclusion of GNU Ghostscript instead of ESP Ghostscript since ESP Ghostscript lags the GNU version and also since GNU Ghostscript now seems to be a maintained project. That would mean that we would have GNU Ghostscript and AFPL Ghostscript in BLFS. [RFC 3] Or should we include only one Ghostscript package and if so which one? Personally I prefer having AFPL and GNU Ghostscript in BLFS. Thoughts? Comments? --Tushar. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
