Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
Igor Peshansky wrote:
Yes. [the] purpose [of nonX gs] is the same as xpm-nox -- to allow rendering
postscript
to a non-screen device in batch mode. People who don't have X may still
want to do this, for example to convert postscript to PDF.
Since X11 will now be *modular*, is that such a big deal? Based on the
current ghostscript-8.50 dependecies, the X11 gs should require a total
of 6 X11 runtime libraries and libX11-data.
Since I've packaged the runtime libraries separately from the
development libs (i.e. libSM source -> libSM6 runtime and libSM devel
and docs), I wouldn't consider this excessive.
You're forgetting one thing: you also MUST have the X-server actually
running when you invoke the X-based gs, even in batch mode. I wouldn't
want my conversion script -- which has *nothing* to do with X -- to fail
simply because I didn't start the Xserver.
I'd recommend something like a script wrapped around checkX -- but I'd
have to add checkX to cygutils or something first, instead of packaging
it with the [not yet approved ITP] for rxvt-unicode-[X|common].
Then again, that gets really unwieldy and kludgy, fast. Maybe this
should just be relegated to 'caveat emptor': you want to be sure you're
using the non-X gs, then call gs-non-x.exe.
--
Chuck
