Tushar Teredesai wrote:
[RFC 1]
The BLFS instructions state that the pstoraster patch cannot be
applied to AFPL Ghostscript. This seems to be incorrect.
I know.
The AFPL only
restricts redistribution, so patching the software and using it
internally is allowed...
...but does not work out of the box due to this missing piece of the script:
# See if we have a filename on the command-line...
if test -z "$6"; then
ifile="-"
else
ifile="$6"
fi
<snip>
$bindir/gs $gsopts -sOUTPUTFILE="%stdout" -c"$profile" "$ifile"
I prefer saying "this doesn't work" to patching the patch. But the
problem is indeed fixable.
I am planning to change the wording of the
incorrect note in the Book.
OK.
[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.
There was a PDF file that ESP ghostscript opened perfectly and GNU
ghostscript didn't. It's at my work computer, so I will be able to look
at it again only tomorrow. Also, the current AFPL ghostscript (at least
under MS Windows) has an issue with embedding TryeType fonts into PDF
files using ps2pdf.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
