This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Need a ghostscript maintainer
- To: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Subject: Re: Need a ghostscript maintainer
- From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 01:28:36 -0400
- CC: Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry at baikal dot ru>, cygwin at cygwin dot com
- References: <20010628221547.A3873@redhat.com> <20010629174426.C9027@redhat.com> <02bd01c1020a$19687850$c6823bd5@dima> <068c01c1021e$9dccbe80$806410ac@local>
Robert Collins wrote:
>
> In fact it didn't use to be provided. Users asked for it. Check the
> archives. (Native ghostscript doesn't support cygwin paths for starters &&
> what about X support).
>
Actually, until cygwin-xfree becomes an official part of the
setup.exe-supported cygwin platform, ghostscript should not be built
with X support at all. If ghostscript has X support, then it will
*require* that users download & install the huge cygwin-xfree package
(without the assistance of setup.exe) -- or else gs.exe will complain of
missing dll's.
Thus, the "official" ghostscript package shouldn't have X
support/dependency.
For the rest of the question, "Why provide a cygwin ghostscript?",
Jerome's answer is good (paraphrase):
The ability to understand and use unixlike cygwin path constructs, and
to call gs.exe from scripts are crucial in many cases, especially 'teTeX'.
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/