Hi,
I've been noticing that most Linux distro's only come with GPL Ghostscript 7.07. But GPL Ghostscript 8.01 and 8.15 have been out for quite a while. Is there anything (the License?) that prevents the distro's to include the latest version? Or when will they start to distribute these versions.
Xiaotian
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 11:06:57PM -0800, Xiaotian Sun wrote:
I've been noticing that most Linux distro's only come with GPL Ghostscript 7.07. But GPL Ghostscript 8.01 and 8.15 have been out for quite a while. Is there anything (the License?) that prevents the distro's to include the latest version? Or when will they start to distribute these versions.
This is something that was discussed on fedora-devel-list a couple of weeks ago, and it's more complicated than simply upgrading. It's probably a discussion best continued there.
Tim. */
On Monday 22 November 2004 02:06, Xiaotian Sun wrote:
Hi,
I've been noticing that most Linux distro's only come with GPL Ghostscript 7.07. But GPL Ghostscript 8.01 and 8.15 have been out for quite a while. Is there anything (the License?) that prevents the distro's to include the latest version? Or when will they start to distribute these versions.
Xiaotian
Questions such as this are better answered, by the folks who do cups, on the cups list at easysw.com.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:12:12AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
On Monday 22 November 2004 20:25, Tim Waugh wrote:
It's probably a discussion best continued there.
Not of greate benefit to interested parties here.
I think it fits the remit of fedora-devel-list better: package upgrades and related issues in the core package set certainly come under development to my mind. The list is open to any interested parties to subscribe to, or to read the archives.
I'm sure those on fedora-devel-list but not fedora-list wouldn't want to miss out on any insights shared in this forum. Let's keep the discussion in one place.
Tim. */
On Monday 22 November 2004 20:25, Tim Waugh wrote:
It's probably a discussion best continued [in fedora-devel-list].
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:12:12AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Not of great benefit to interested parties here.
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 11:38 +0000, Tim Waugh wrote:
I think it fits the remit of fedora-devel-list better: package upgrades and related issues in the core package set certainly come under development to my mind. The list is open to any interested parties to subscribe to, or to read the archives.
I'm sure those on fedora-devel-list but not fedora-list wouldn't want to miss out on any insights shared in this forum. Let's keep the discussion in one place.
I write:
(1) There seems to be a problem with either ghostscript or with its fonts. Courier fonts are displayed (both in gv and while printing) as MUCH TOO BIG. When printing, they overwrite other text making the output very hard to read. There's been a lot of posting at various places on the web about problems with courier vs. FC3, but no solutions.
(2) Does anyone have either rpms of ghostscript-8.15, preferable for AMD 86-64 processors and a recent ghostscript font distribution (6.00 or above), or know a way to get ghostscript to handle courier fonts properly.
(3) I just searched fedora-devel-list for anything about ghostscript. Nothing except whether Fedora could legally include ghostscript-8.50, which is under the AFPL license (similar to GPL, but not the same).
(4) I can see why there is resistance to porting ghostscript-8.15 to FC3. I've compiled ghostscript a couple of times; each time it took me a couple of days to remember everything that needed to be done and to do it all. This doesn't include including all the patches... So I'd rather have someone else do it.
Thanks:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 01:33:34PM -0800, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
(1) There seems to be a problem with either ghostscript or with its fonts. Courier fonts are displayed (both in gv and while printing) as MUCH TOO BIG. When printing, they overwrite other text making the output very hard to read. There's been a lot of posting at various places on the web about problems with courier vs. FC3, but no solutions.
(2) Does anyone have either rpms of ghostscript-8.15, preferable for AMD 86-64 processors and a recent ghostscript font distribution (6.00 or above), or know a way to get ghostscript to handle courier fonts properly.
The problem with fonts is in the urw-fonts as far as I know. See the bugzilla report about it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=140584
Tim. */
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 10:33 +0000, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 01:33:34PM -0800, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
(1) There seems to be a problem with either ghostscript or with its fonts. Courier fonts are displayed (both in gv and while printing) as MUCH TOO BIG. When printing, they overwrite other text making the output very hard to read. There's been a lot of posting at various places on the web about problems with courier vs. FC3, but no solutions.
(2) Does anyone have either rpms of ghostscript-8.15, preferable for AMD 86-64 processors and a recent ghostscript font distribution (6.00 or above), or know a way to get ghostscript to handle courier fonts properly.
The problem with fonts is in the urw-fonts as far as I know. See the bugzilla report about it:
Downgrading to urw-fonts-2.1-7 from FC-2 fixes this problem for me also. Maybe someone should renumber urw-fonts-2.1-7 as urw-fonts-2.2-7 and release them on the servers as an upgrade till the **real** upgrade is ready.
BTW: Does anyone know anything about gs-8.15?
Thanks very much:
When booting from cd to install FC3.0 the installer fails to find my hd which is using s-ata NVIDIA nForce3 controller. Does anyone know where I can find drivers that work for this controller? The machine I'm using is a Athlon AMD64 2.4GHz. Do I have to burn a new installation cd? How do I use the new drivers when I get them?
Hallvard Benum, Norway
-
Gene Heskett -
Hallvard Benum -
John Summerfield -
Jonathan Ryshpan -
Tim Waugh -
Xiaotian Sun