Evince [Was: #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4]

2007-04-23 Thread Ag. D. Hatzimanikas
On Thu, Apr 19, at 10:39 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: ... switch to Evince as a lightweight PS/PDF viewer (possibly patched in order to avoid GNOME dependencies, see http://mirror.linux.org.mt/mirror/ubuntu/pool/main/e/evince-gtk/evince-gtk_0.5.2-0ubuntu7.diff.gz). Thanks Alexander, that

Re: [Fwd: Re: [BLFS Trac] #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4]

2007-04-19 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
I wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote: Original Message Subject: Re: [BLFS Trac] #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:04:40 - #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4 Comment: Updated BLFS to ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4. Not sure how this affects the packages

[Fwd: Re: [BLFS Trac] #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4]

2007-04-18 Thread Randy McMurchy
Original Message Subject: Re: [BLFS Trac] #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:04:40 - #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4 Comment: Updated BLFS to ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4. Not sure how this affects the packages that may link to the libgs.so library, now

Re: [Fwd: Re: [BLFS Trac] #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4]

2007-04-18 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
Randy McMurchy wrote: Original Message Subject: Re: [BLFS Trac] #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:04:40 - #2317: ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4 Comment: Updated BLFS to ESP Ghostscript-8.15.4. Not sure how this affects the packages that may link

ESP Ghostscript init files location (8.15-8.15.2 subdir)

2007-03-09 Thread Jens Stroebel
Hello. During the install of the ESP Ghostscript package and it's use in the resulting system, I had to create a link /usr/share/ghostscript/8.15 - 8.15.2 to enable gs to find it's initialization files (gs_init.ps et al.). Attached is a patch to give a genral idea

Re: ESP Ghostscript init files location (8.15-8.15.2 subdir)

2007-03-09 Thread Dan Nicholson
On 3/9/07, Jens Stroebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: During the install of the ESP Ghostscript package and it's use in the resulting system, I had to create a link /usr/share/ghostscript/8.15 - 8.15.2 to enable gs to find it's initialization files (gs_init.ps et al.). I wonder why

Re: ESP Ghostscript init files location (8.15-8.15.2 subdir)

2007-03-09 Thread Jens Stroebel
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:29:20AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote: On 3/9/07, Jens Stroebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: During the install of the ESP Ghostscript package and it's use in the resulting system, I had to create a link /usr/share/ghostscript/8.15 - 8.15.2 to enable gs to find

Re: ESP Ghostscript init files location (8.15-8.15.2 subdir)

2007-03-09 Thread Randy McMurchy
Jens Stroebel wrote these words on 03/09/07 05:27 CST: During the install of the ESP Ghostscript package and it's use in the resulting system, I had to create a link /usr/share/ghostscript/8.15 - 8.15.2 to enable gs to find it's initialization files (gs_init.ps et al.). I do not see

Re: ESP Ghostscript init files location (8.15-8.15.2 subdir)

2007-03-09 Thread Jens Stroebel
On Friday 09 March 2007 19:55, Randy McMurchy wrote: Jens Stroebel wrote these words on 03/09/07 05:27 CST: During the install of the ESP Ghostscript package and it's use in the resulting system, I had to create a link /usr/share/ghostscript/8.15 - 8.15.2 to enable gs to find it's

Re: ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-18 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
Randy McMurchy wrote: 3. Though I'm not sure it is required any longer, it appears that the CFLAGS_SO variable in the current command is indirectly still used if you follow the package instructions to build the shared library. I'm not certain why the book's current command is the way it is

ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-17 Thread Randy McMurchy
Hi all, Playing around with the new Ghostscript version I've noticed a couple of things. Some of them require a change, so I thought I'd pass them by the group and see if everyone agrees. Noted changes in the 8.15.1 version: 1. The .so name of the shared library has been incremented. It is now

Re: ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-17 Thread Ken Moffat
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Randy McMurchy wrote: Now for the changes that I'd like to see if everyone agrees on: [...] What say the group on these changes? Yes to both, please. Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce --

Re: ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-17 Thread Tushar Teredesai
On 12/17/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. The default output device now appears to be bbox, the bounding box display. This means that using gs like this: gs filename won't display to the screen. You have to set the GS_DEVICE env var to equal x11, or use -sDEVICE=x11 on the

Re: ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-17 Thread Bruce Dubbs
devices created by the default installation, there's one that doesn't format the file for the screen or for a printer. Instead, it gives something like this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/espgs bin/gs share/ghostscript/8.15/examples/tiger.eps ESP Ghostscript 815.01 (2005-09-22) Copyright (C) 2004

Re: ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-17 Thread Randy McMurchy
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/17/05 15:20 CST: My concern is that gs is normally not an end user app, but is called by other processes to convert files from one form to another, usually either a printer or the screen. If your proposed change works with GSView and cups, then its OK with

Re: ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-17 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Randy McMurchy wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/17/05 15:20 CST: My concern is that gs is normally not an end user app, but is called by other processes to convert files from one form to another, usually either a printer or the screen. If your proposed change works with GSView and

Re: ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-17 Thread Randy McMurchy
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/17/05 16:17 CST: Seems reasonable to me. However, we will need to monitor it for potential problems. I suppose I phrased this whole thing wrong. Mind you, I don't care how the book is, I know what *I* did for my installation that works just great with cups

Re: ESP Ghostscript

2005-12-17 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Randy McMurchy wrote: Quite frankly, I don't feel like looking out for potential problems. I'd just rather update the package and be done with it. You know, make an informed decision and go with it. So, trying to rephrase the question here. We have some choices. 1. Accept the new default