Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 00:17 CST: > 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. > > 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?
I think removing ESP Ghostscript would be a mistake. I have had good success using it with all the printers I've ever set up. I must use CUPS for printing and ESP Ghostscript works perfectly with it. I don't know I would ever use another version, whether in BLFS or not. ESP Ghostscript 8.15RC3 was just released a few months ago and this package is maintained. I'm not sure that you saying GNU Ghostscript "now seems to be a maintained project" makes it a better candidate than the ESP Ghostscript. Other comments is that if packages are already in BLFS, and don't require very much maintenance, what is the harm in keeping them in the book? This is a question that deserves a compelling answer. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 00:21:00 up 128 days, 23:54, 2 users, load average: 0.36, 1.04, 1.05 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
