Re: May need a ghostscript maintainer

[Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>]

Norman Vine wrote:
> 
> Christopher Faylor writes:
> >>
> >Is anyone willing to maintain this?  We need to provide an X-less
> >version of ghostscript.  Norman Vine has managed to do this, so it is
> >not an impossible feat:
> >
> >http://www.vso.cape.com/~nhv/files/cygwin/gs6.62/
> >
> >If someone would like to volunteer to do this, please respond to this
> >thread.
> 
> FYI
> I just downloaded the ghostscript 7.0 source and for the heck of it
> just tried the makefile linked from my page with out applying any of
> the other fixes that I mention
> 
> Lo and behold gs compiled and made pdf's of all the examples. :-))
> 
> This was on a binary mounted drive so there may be a fopen bug
> lurking somewhere but ....
> 
> My question to the list is
> "Should I submit my makefile to the ghostscript maintainers
> for inclusion in the main ghostscript distribution as cygwin.mak"
> 

Yuck!!  How about modifying the configure.in to do the right thing for
Cygwin?!

> Then I believe to get a functional ghostscript one would only
> need to unpack the tarball and do
> 
> % ln -s src/cygwin.mak
> % make
> 

The reason I don't like this much is that it makes me too dependent on
your configuration and I wouldn't do it by default because it's not the
norm.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple