Hi,
building the perfect ghostscript gsview is very simple, however
a .dll is needed. The .dll is part of ghostscript-7.05. However
its missing.
Cheers Jack
Updated: ghostscript-7.05-1 (test release)
From: Dario Alcocer alcocer at helixdigital dot com
To: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
Hi,
building the perfect ghostscript gsview is very simple, however
a .dll is needed. The .dll is part of ghostscript-7.05. However
its missing.
Cheers Jack
Updated: ghostscript-7.05-1 (test release)
From: Dario Alcocer alcocer at helixdigital dot com
To: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
Hi,
building the perfect ghostscript gsview is very simple, however
a .dll is needed. The .dll is part of ghostscript-7.05. However
its missing.
Cheers Jack
Updated: ghostscript-7.05-1 (test release)
From: Dario Alcocer alcocer at helixdigital dot com
To: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
release)
From: Dario Alcocer alcocer at helixdigital dot com
To: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:28:34 -0700
Subject: Updated: ghostscript-7.05-1 (test release)
The Cygwin version
--- Harold L Hunt II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is going on here Mr. Jack Larsen? We have had four posts of
this
meesage to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Were you intending to post
this to
cygwin-apps or somewhere else?
Have you put this in release/ or release/XFree86? If it isn't in
Nicholas,
Thanks for the refresher course in the package approval process, the
discussion of which I was a participant in.
You seem to have confused the *directory* release/XFree86 with the
*category* XFree86. Go back and read my original response and you will
see that I was trying to
.
Harold
Jack Larsen wrote:
Hi,
building the perfect ghostscript gsview is very simple, however
a .dll is needed. The .dll is part of ghostscript-7.05. However
its missing.
Cheers Jack
Updated: ghostscript-7.05-1 (test release)
From: Dario Alcocer alcocer at helixdigital dot
Harold,
Thanks for the sarcasm, but it was hardly warranted. I was simply
restating the facts for those who were not involved. Also, it seems
that you missed one of the points of that discussion, which was that
all things of XFree nature should be discussed on the XFree list,
regardless of
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
Harold,
Thanks for the sarcasm, but it was hardly warranted. I was simply
restating the facts for those who were not involved. Also, it seems
that you missed one of the points of that discussion, which was that
all things of XFree nature should be discussed on the
