Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 15:44 CST: > On 8/9/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>So, to me, the ESP version of GhostScript provides all of GNU's >>functionality plus more. Win-win using ESP. :-) > > Except that it lags the GNU release and hence will always be playing catch-up.
This is true. However, the releases provided by ESP will be better than the releases provided by GNU. Which of the two is likely to make a "better package" at any given time will fluctuate. So, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to remove ESP from the book, seeing how at any given time the ESP package could be "better". Why don't we just add GNU Ghostscript into the book as well? I realize this is additional maintenance, but what the heck, if there are *Editors* using a package, it will stay maintained. It is packages that are not used by Editors (Courier, Exim, etc.) that don't seem to get maintained. -- 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] 15:52:00 up 129 days, 15:25, 2 users, load average: 0.16, 0.73, 0.96 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
