hi,
what's the ghostscript future in FC ?
GNU Ghostscript http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/gnu/ http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ GPL Ghostscript http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/ ESP Ghostscript http://www.cups.org/ghostscript.php
:-?
Slackware has changed to ESP because it brings more drivers and has a better integration with CUPS
-- Hello, this is Darl McBride, and I pronounce Linux as UNIX.
*bump*
fre, 15.10.2004 kl. 22.36 skrev Xose Vazquez Perez:
hi,
what's the ghostscript future in FC ?
GNU Ghostscript http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/gnu/ http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ GPL Ghostscript http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/ ESP Ghostscript http://www.cups.org/ghostscript.php
:-?
Slackware has changed to ESP because it brings more drivers and has a better integration with CUPS
-- Hello, this is Darl McBride, and I pronounce Linux as UNIX.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 10:36:35PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
what's the ghostscript future in FC ?
GNU Ghostscript http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/gnu/ http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ ESP Ghostscript http://www.cups.org/ghostscript.php
Good question. Well, what do we all think?
GPL Ghostscript http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/
This site is no longer current, by the way. The GNU Ghostscript project is the same thing at GPL Ghostscript.
Slackware has changed to ESP because it brings more drivers and has a better integration with CUPS
Well, the drawback is that you end up being further removed from the origin of the source code. The benefit is that someone else does (a lot of) the integration for you.
Does ESP Ghostscript include the patches for Japanese support, out of interest? What are the differences between the ESP Ghostscript package and our package based on GNU Ghostscript (which has lots of patches)?
Which direction should Fedora Core take for ghostscript? Now is a good time to discuss that, since we're overdue to jump to version 8.
Tim. */
Printing this with the gimp-print (?) driver took me 10-15 minutes of gs chrunching: http://skrot.solution-forge.net/Aurlandsrapport.pdf
tir, 19.10.2004 kl. 10.16 skrev Tim Waugh:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 10:36:35PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
what's the ghostscript future in FC ?
GNU Ghostscript http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/gnu/ http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ ESP Ghostscript http://www.cups.org/ghostscript.php
Good question. Well, what do we all think?
GPL Ghostscript http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/
This site is no longer current, by the way. The GNU Ghostscript project is the same thing at GPL Ghostscript.
Slackware has changed to ESP because it brings more drivers and has a better integration with CUPS
Well, the drawback is that you end up being further removed from the origin of the source code. The benefit is that someone else does (a lot of) the integration for you.
Does ESP Ghostscript include the patches for Japanese support, out of interest? What are the differences between the ESP Ghostscript package and our package based on GNU Ghostscript (which has lots of patches)?
Which direction should Fedora Core take for ghostscript? Now is a good time to discuss that, since we're overdue to jump to version 8.
Tim. */
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:02:39PM +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
Printing this with the gimp-print (?) driver took me 10-15 minutes of gs chrunching: http://skrot.solution-forge.net/Aurlandsrapport.pdf
Well, gimp-print is distributed separately to ghostscript, and so is not at issue in *this* thread, which is about whether to carry on with GNU Ghostscript or switch to ESP Ghostscript.
Tim. */
Tim Waugh wrote:
GPL Ghostscript http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/
This site is no longer current, by the way. The GNU Ghostscript project is the same thing at GPL Ghostscript.
wrong, 'GPL Ghostscript' is the package relased by artofcode, LLC. and Artifex Software, Inc. from an old tree of the commercial 'AFPL Ghostscript' under GPL license.
'GNU Ghostscript' is 'GPL Ghostscript' minus some "questionable" files.
Does ESP Ghostscript include the patches for Japanese support, out of interest? What are the differences between the ESP Ghostscript package and our package based on GNU Ghostscript (which has lots of patches)?
AFPL -> GPL -> GNU -> ESP
AFPL Ghostscript: root package, it's free as beer not as speech. GPL Ghostscript: old tree of AFPL, under GPL license. GNU Ghostscript: like GPL minus some "questionable" files by FSF. ESP Ghostscript: like GNU plus bug fixes + others add-ons, supported by Easy Software Products.
today releases are, AFPL: 8.14 (22-Feb-2004) GPL: 8.15 (23-Sep-2004) GNU: 8.01 (14-Feb-2004) ESP: 7.07.1 (08-Oct-2003)
ESP brings: - preliminary PCL 6 drivers for CUPS - bugs fixed over GNU - direct CMYK printing in the CUPS driver - add nearly all known GhostScript drivers as listed on "http://www.linuxprinting.org/";, including IBM's OMNI, Martin Lottermoser's PCL3, and EPSON's laser printer drivers - makes several drivers more portable - re-register any installed CID fonts at install time. - latest printer drivers
they call it :
"ESP Ghostscript is a customized version of GNU Ghostscript that includes an enhanced autoconf-based configuration script, the CUPS raster driver to support CUPS raster printer drivers, and additional patches and drivers from various Linux distributors"
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 06:48:23PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Does ESP Ghostscript include the patches for Japanese support, out of interest? What are the differences between the ESP Ghostscript package and our package based on GNU Ghostscript (which has lots of patches)?
AFPL -> GPL -> GNU -> ESP
Okay -- but what are the differences between ESP Ghostscript and the Ghostscript package we actually ship? Ours is based on GNU Ghostscript, but has lots of other patches integrated. What functionality would need to be ported to ESP Ghostscript to maintain the same level?
ESP brings:
- preliminary PCL 6 drivers for CUPS
- bugs fixed over GNU
- direct CMYK printing in the CUPS driver
- add nearly all known GhostScript drivers as listed on
"http://www.linuxprinting.org/";, including IBM's OMNI, Martin Lottermoser's PCL3, and EPSON's laser printer drivers
- makes several drivers more portable
- re-register any installed CID fonts at install time.
- latest printer drivers
But these are relative to what? GNU Ghostscript? What I'm personally interested in is a comparision between ESP Ghostscript and the Ghostscript package we are currently shipping.
With respect to switching to ESP Ghostscript for the next development cycle, one drawback that seems immediately apparent is that ESP Ghostscript is not based on GNU Ghostscript 8.x! If we stick to GNU Ghostscript we'll be able to upgrade to 8.x.
Tim. */
Tim Waugh wrote:
Okay -- but what are the differences between ESP Ghostscript and the Ghostscript package we actually ship?
latest Fedora Ghostscript and latest ESP Ghostscript are both based on GNU 7.07. but ESP brings -> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/espgs/espgs/CHANGES?rev=1.101
But these are relative to what? GNU Ghostscript? What I'm personally
yes, GNU.
And the main differences GPL vs. GNU are that GNU deletes all files from Resource/CMap/* because they are:
%%Copyright: ----------------------------------------------------------- %%Copyright: Copyright 1990-1996 Adobe Systems Incorporated. %%Copyright: All Rights Reserved. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Patents Pending %%Copyright: %%Copyright: NOTICE: All information contained herein is the property %%Copyright: of Adobe Systems Incorporated. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Permission is granted for redistribution of this file %%Copyright: provided this copyright notice is maintained intact and %%Copyright: that the contents of this file are not altered in any %%Copyright: way from its original form. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: PostScript and Display PostScript are trademarks of %%Copyright: Adobe Systems Incorporated which may be registered in %%Copyright: certain jurisdictions. %%Copyright: -----------------------------------------------------------
plus some adaptations of documents (GPL -> GNU, Linux -> GNU/Linux , GPL license...) And GNU is one or two releases behind GPL.
With respect to switching to ESP Ghostscript for the next development cycle, one drawback that seems immediately apparent is that ESP Ghostscript is not based on GNU Ghostscript 8.x! If we stick to GNU Ghostscript we'll be able to upgrade to 8.x.
latest ESP still is based on GNU 7.07, but with a lot of external stuff: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/espgs/espgs/CHANGES?view=markup
get it from: http://sourceforge.net/projects/espgs
Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
And the main differences GPL vs. GNU are that GNU deletes all files from Resource/CMap/* because they are:
%%Copyright: ----------------------------------------------------------- %%Copyright: Copyright 1990-1996 Adobe Systems Incorporated. %%Copyright: All Rights Reserved. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Patents Pending %%Copyright: %%Copyright: NOTICE: All information contained herein is the property %%Copyright: of Adobe Systems Incorporated. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: Permission is granted for redistribution of this file %%Copyright: provided this copyright notice is maintained intact and %%Copyright: that the contents of this file are not altered in any %%Copyright: way from its original form. %%Copyright: %%Copyright: PostScript and Display PostScript are trademarks of %%Copyright: Adobe Systems Incorporated which may be registered in %%Copyright: certain jurisdictions. %%Copyright: -----------------------------------------------------------
I just saw that Fedora brings a patch (adobe-cmaps-200202.tar.gz) with the files that are deleted from GNU ghostscript. So it's better to use GPL ghostscript than GNU ghostscript.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:41:31PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Tim Waugh wrote:
Okay -- but what are the differences between ESP Ghostscript and the Ghostscript package we actually ship?
latest Fedora Ghostscript and latest ESP Ghostscript are both based on GNU 7.07. but ESP brings -> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/espgs/espgs/CHANGES?rev=1.101
I know that *currently* Fedora Ghostscript is based on GNU Ghostscript 7.07 -- that's because I just haven't had the time to port all the patches. But in principle someone from the Fedora Community could do that, or it could be made a blocker/target for the next development cycle, etc. Whereas with ESP Ghostscript we would be reliant on ESP to do the work.
The other way of looking at it is that ESP would do the work and we wouldn't have to. :-)
Just want to figure out which is more appropriate for Fedora Core.
Tim. */
Le mardi 19 octobre 2004 à 20:20 +0100, Tim Waugh a écrit :
The other way of looking at it is that ESP would do the work and we wouldn't have to. :-)
Just want to figure out which is more appropriate for Fedora Core.
I don't know the ESP people, but from my POW their fork could easily turn into something like the ximian oo.o fork (ie a staging area where distros pool patches instead of reinventing the wheel in their little linux corner and massively duplicating efforts).
Of course I may be horribly wrong;)
Cheers,
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I don't know the ESP people, but from my POW their fork could easily turn into something like the ximian oo.o fork (ie a staging area where distros pool patches instead of reinventing the wheel in their little linux corner and massively duplicating efforts).
Of course I may be horribly wrong;)
the big trouble is AFPL upstream code is not under GPL license so it's impossible to merge patches into it. And the only one option is to maintain an external patch(or repository) as Fedora or ESP are doing. And doing sync with new GPL releases.
Or a _real_ fork.
Le mardi 19 octobre 2004 à 21:57 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I don't know the ESP people, but from my POW their fork could easily turn into something like the ximian oo.o fork (ie a staging area where distros pool patches instead of reinventing the wheel in their little linux corner and massively duplicating efforts).
Of course I may be horribly wrong;)
the big trouble is AFPL upstream code is not under GPL license so it's impossible to merge patches into it. And the only one option is to maintain an external patch(or repository) as Fedora or ESP are doing. And doing sync with new GPL releases.
This seems much the same problem that with oo.o. Linux distos use a common fork because it is difficult to get code into the main trunc, and obviously Sun people work for Solaris StarOffice users first, and Linux OpenOffice.org users later, so the priorities are not the same.
Similarly getting code into gs require upstream noticing (and getting authorisation to use) a patch, merge it into their main version, and _then_ wait for the next version so this one can be freed/gpl'd. Same problem -> different priorities, long wait -> huge patch queue.
Getting patches in a common free fork would make it easier for upstream to find them, and provide a common root so fixes can be propagated quickly among free systems.
Cheers,
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 10:19:10PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Similarly getting code into gs require upstream noticing (and getting authorisation to use) a patch, merge it into their main version, and _then_ wait for the next version so this one can be freed/gpl'd. Same problem -> different priorities, long wait -> huge patch queue.
Getting patches in a common free fork would make it easier for upstream to find them, and provide a common root so fixes can be propagated quickly among free systems.
This is certainly quite a big pull for us to move to ESP Ghostscript, IMHO.
There is also a community push to re-base ESP Ghostscript on GNU Ghostscript 8.15.
Perhaps the best thing would be to switch to ESP Ghostscript first (and iron out any problems that we come across) -- and then help with the upgrade to 8.15.
Opinions?
Tim. */
Tim Waugh wrote:
The other way of looking at it is that ESP would do the work and we wouldn't have to. :-)
Just want to figure out which is more appropriate for Fedora Core.
out of the box, ESP looks better than GNU. But if you are going to patch GNU Ghostscript with a lot of stuff, maybe FC is the best ;-)
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Kyrre Ness Sjobak -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Tim Waugh -
Xose Vazquez Perez