Hi,
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 07:33:25PM +0200, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> Ping
>
> On 2025-05-04 21:36, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > Update to latest release, which reinstates the pdf2dsc binary and fixes
> > CVE-2025-46646 on top of the CVEs that were already fixed by 10.05.0
> >
> > https://ghostsc
Ping
On 2025-05-04 21:36, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Update to latest release, which reinstates the pdf2dsc binary and fixes
CVE-2025-46646 on top of the CVEs that were already fixed by 10.05.0
https://ghostscript.readthedocs.io/en/gs10.05.1/News.html
ok for -stable and -current?
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.137
diff -u -p -r1.137 Makefile
--- Makefile 16 Mar 2025 19:38:08 - 1.137
+++ Makefile 4 May 2025 19:35:39 -
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
COMMENT = PostScript and PDF interpreter
-VERSION = 10.05.0
+VERSION
On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 09:52:19PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> On 3/16/25 8:58 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 08:50:53PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/16/25 8:27 PM, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> > > > > ok for -stable (with a slightly different diff on account
On 3/16/25 8:58 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 08:50:53PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
On 3/16/25 8:27 PM, Matthias Kilian wrote:
ok for -stable (with a slightly different diff on account of REVISION)?
Can't speak on that.
Fair enough, so for those who can, here's the -st
can, here's the -stable diff attached
> explicitly...
Bumps should be avoided in stable. Could you elaborate on why they're
needed and if that could possibly be avoided?
> Index: Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/por
: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
diff -u -p -r1.134.2.1 Makefile
--- Makefile 9 Oct 2024 13:54:03 - 1.134.2.1
+++ Makefile 16 Mar 2025 19:45:44 -
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
COMMENT = PostScript and PDF interpreter
-VERSION = 10.04.0
+VERSION = 10.05.0
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 08:28:07PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> Ghostscript just released an update fixing a metric ton of CVEs:
>
> CVE-2025-27835
> CVE-2025-27832
> CVE-2025-27831
> CVE-2025-27836
> CVE-2025-27830
> CVE-2025-27833
> CVE-2025-27837
Early ping, because security ...
On 3/12/25 8:28 PM, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Ghostscript just released an update fixing a metric ton of CVEs:
CVE-2025-27835
CVE-2025-27832
CVE-2025-27831
CVE-2025-27836
CVE-2025-27830
CVE-2025-27833
CVE-2025-27837
CVE-2025-27834
https
Ghostscript just released an update fixing a metric ton of CVEs:
CVE-2025-27835
CVE-2025-27832
CVE-2025-27831
CVE-2025-27836
CVE-2025-27830
CVE-2025-27833
CVE-2025-27837
CVE-2025-27834
https://ghostscript.readthedocs.io/en/gs10.05.0/News.html
While it removes a utility (pdf2dsc), it doesn&#
>
> > > CVE-2024-46951
> > > CVE-2024-46952
> > > CVE-2024-46953
> > > CVE-2024-46954
> > > CVE-2024-46955
> > > CVE-2024-46956
> > >
> > > Looking for OKs to commit once the tree is unlocked, both to -current and
> > > 7.
le: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
diff -u -p -r1.134 Makefile
--- Makefile1 Aug 2024 11:34:27 - 1.134
+++ Makefile23 Sep 2024 11:49:36 -
@@ -1,13 +1,12 @@
COMMENT = PostScript and PDF interpreter
-VERSION = 10.03.1
+VERSION = 10.04.0
DIS
to commit once the tree is unlocked, both to -current and
> > 7.6-stable.
>
> > Index: Makefile
> > ===
> > RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
> > diff -u -p -r1.134 Makefile
&g
6952
> CVE-2024-46953
> CVE-2024-46954
> CVE-2024-46955
> CVE-2024-46956
>
> Looking for OKs to commit once the tree is unlocked, both to -current and
> 7.6-stable.
> Index: Makefile
> =======
> RCS file:
/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
diff -u -p -r1.134 Makefile
--- Makefile1 Aug 2024 11:34:27 - 1.134
+++ Makefile22 Sep 2024 21:56:12 -
@@ -1,13 +1,12 @@
COMMENT = PostScript and PDF interpreter
-VERSION = 10.03.1
+VERSION = 10.04.0
DISTNAME = ghostpdl-${VERSION
Hello,
> I dropped --with-pdf from the originally proposed patch, because even there it
> did not generate a gpdf binary, and frankly with the gs binary already
> including
> a pdf interpreter I don't quite see the point in trying to somehow get a gpdf
> binary built.
>
> opinions? OKs?
compare
ding
a pdf interpreter I don't quite see the point in trying to somehow get a gpdf
binary built.
opinions? OKs?
On 2024-07-07 20:53, SASANO Takayoshi wrote:
Hi,
I want to use GhostPCL but there is no package.
It looks easy to extend ghostscript ports, but everyone wants to use
all-in-one packa
attempt attached.
I think it's ok.
Ciao,
Kili
> Index: Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/Makefile,v
> diff -u -p -r1.15 Makefile
> --- Makefile 11 Mar 2022 19:51:00 - 1.15
&
file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/Makefile,v
diff -u -p -r1.15 Makefile
--- Makefile11 Mar 2022 19:51:00 - 1.15
+++ Makefile16 Jul 2024 19:25:44 -
@@ -1,10 +1,6 @@
SUBDIR =
SUBDIR += gnu
-SUBDIR += gnu,a4
SUBDIR += gnu,gtk
-SUBDIR += gnu,gtk,a4
VORS?
> >
> > Moving this to a new thread. I'll look into including the rest of ghostpdl
> > next.
> >
> > I'd be very happy to drop -no_x11 and -a4.
> >
> > ok?
>
> This needs some @pkgpath markers in pkg/PLIST to allow seamless
>
cluding the rest of ghostpdl
> next.
>
> I'd be very happy to drop -no_x11 and -a4.
>
> ok?
This needs some @pkgpath markers in pkg/PLIST to allow seamless
updates. Something like
@pkgpath print/ghostscript/gnu,a4
@pkgpath print/ghostscript/gnu,no_x11
@pkgpath print/ghostscript
: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/Makefile,v
diff -u -p -r1.15 Makefile
--- Makefile11 Mar 2022 19:51:00 - 1.15
+++ Makefile15 Jul 2024 20:31:51 -
@@ -1,10 +1,6 @@
SUBDIR =
SUBDIR += gnu
-SUBDIR += gnu,a4
age?
> > Or another port, maybe? There are already 3 FLAVORS in the
> > ghostscript/gnu port and I'm not sure this would mix well with
> > MULTI_PACKAGES. Another port would probably need some tweaks for the
> > shared libs. Just putting everything inside the same
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:30:34PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:15:10PM +0900, SASANO Takayoshi wrote:
> Not sure what you folks mean with "another package". A subpackage?
> Or another port, maybe? There are already 3 FLAVORS in th
On 2024/07/09 23:56, SASANO Takayoshi wrote:
> Well, how do we treat commonly-installed documents?
>
> binary is different, but manuals (and some other stuff) are same
> between Ghost*.
>
> (so, I think ghostscript package contains all; same as ghostpdl or
> ghostpdl
Well, how do we treat commonly-installed documents?
binary is different, but manuals (and some other stuff) are same
between Ghost*.
(so, I think ghostscript package contains all; same as ghostpdl or
ghostpdl might be addendum for ghostscript.)
--
SASANO Takayoshi (JG1UAA)
tain.
> >
> > > Anyone want to weigh in on this, and also on the question whether to
> > > include
> > > them in the existing port vs. making a new one?
> >
> > I consider how the GhostPDL package should be, appending binaries
> > that needs
This is a confusing way to handle the naming:
> DISTNAME = ghostscript-${VERSION}
> +DISTFILES = ghostpdl-${VERSION}${EXTRACT_SUFX}
...
> +WRKDIST =${WRKDIR}/ghostpdl-${VERSION}
- it would be simpler like this:
DISTNAME = ghostpdl-${VERSION}
PKGNAME = ghostscript-${VERSION}
; them in the existing port vs. making a new one?
>
> I consider how the GhostPDL package should be, appending binaries
> that needs GhostPDL from existing GhostScript.
>
> How about to GhostPDL package that have only following files?
> (and GhostPDF requires GhostScript)
Not sure
PDL from existing GhostScript.
How about to GhostPDL package that have only following files?
(and GhostPDF requires GhostScript)
bin/gpcl6
bin/gpdl
bin/gxps
include/ghostscript/plapi.h
lib/libgpcl6.so
lib/libgpcl6.so.18
lib/libgpcl6.so.${LIBgpcl6_VERSION}
lib/libgpdl.so
lib/libgpdl.so.
ASANO Takayoshi wrote:
Hi,
I want to use GhostPCL but there is no package.
It looks easy to extend ghostscript ports, but everyone wants to use
all-in-one package.
Here is my diff. Is there any good idea?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file:
Hi,
I want to use GhostPCL but there is no package.
It looks easy to extend ghostscript ports, but everyone wants to use
all-in-one package.
Here is my diff. Is there any good idea?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print
Please keep the old value of SITES; with the new one, I couldn't
fetch the distfile.
Otherwise ok.
Hah. On Friday they had a different tag there. Same checksum, though ...
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 07:37:35PM +0200, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> A security release for ghostscript has just hit the github site. Surprisingly
> the release is dated May 2nd, but the ghostscript homepage doesn't reference
> the
> new version - the docs are up ho
Pinging early because it's a security release ...
On 2024-05-17 19:37, Volker Schlecht wrote:
A security release for ghostscript has just hit the github site. Surprisingly
the release is dated May 2nd, but the ghostscript homepage doesn't reference the
new version - the docs are
A security release for ghostscript has just hit the github site. Surprisingly
the release is dated May 2nd, but the ghostscript homepage doesn't reference the
new version - the docs are up however:
https://ghostscript.readthedocs.io/en/gs10.03.1/News.html
The diff is reasonably shor
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> Updates print/ghostscript/gnu to latest release 10.03.0
>
> This is marked as a security release, but the only documented vulnerability
> affects builds with tesseract enabled. In our port we disable it, so we
Updates print/ghostscript/gnu to latest release 10.03.0
This is marked as a security release, but the only documented vulnerability
affects builds with tesseract enabled. In our port we disable it, so we seem
to be unaffected.
https://ghostscript.readthedocs.io/en/gs10.03.0/News.html
Built and
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:44:49AM +, Lennart Jablonka wrote:
> The Ghostscript tarball contains a set of 35 fonts. The Ghostscript build
> embeds those fonts in libgs.so. That’s configurable.
>
> Why does the port ghostscript-fonts exist? Why does the ghostscript port
&g
The Ghostscript tarball contains a set of 35 fonts. The
Ghostscript build embeds those fonts in libgs.so. That’s
configurable.
Why does the port ghostscript-fonts exist? Why does the
ghostscript port depend on it, if it doesn’t use it? We could
drop ghostscript-fonts and let Ghostscript
On 2023-11-13 23:57:22 +0100, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> MFC: Fix for ghostscript 10.02.1, which removes finddevice, backported
> to lilypond-2.22.2.
>
> ok (for OPENBSD_7_4)?
This (eventually) built on OpenBSD 7.4 and now PDF generation
does not fail.
Hi,
MFC: Fix for ghostscript 10.02.1, which removes finddevice, backported
to lilypond-2.22.2.
ok (for OPENBSD_7_4)?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/lilypond/Makefile,v
diff -u -p -r1.58 Makefile
--- Makefile25
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 09:31:14PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> On 2023-11-06 20:40, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 07:13:45PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > > ghostscript released a patch release addressing some vaguely specified
> > > se
On 2023-11-06 20:40, Theo Buehler wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 07:13:45PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
ghostscript released a patch release addressing some vaguely specified
security bugs.
From the changelog, it looks like there's at least a buffer overflow and an
integer overflow tha
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 07:13:45PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> ghostscript released a patch release addressing some vaguely specified
> security bugs.
> From the changelog, it looks like there's at least a buffer overflow and an
> integer overflow that got fixed, so I think we
Not intended as a ping, but updating the diff to use SITES rather than
MASTER_SITES.
On 9/14/23 19:54, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Ghostscript just released version 10.02.0
The major change is the removal of the old PDF interpreter.
The new one has been the default since 10.0.0 and the possibility
Ghostscript just released version 10.02.0
The major change is the removal of the old PDF interpreter.
The new one has been the default since 10.0.0 and the possibility to
fall back to the old PDF interpreter is gone since 10.01.0.
I'm not aware that this caused any trouble, so I don
ghostscript was just released as 10.01.2
No named security content (yet), but this commit is pretty explicit:
https://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=commit;h=9af4197bdccd4b65ed35a8ad2be075c3de2f0555
Overall, the diff is small and seems to be centered around getting the
fix mentioned
Pinging again, since I just got aware of this CVE:
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-28879
The patch should apply to -stable and work there just
as well.
On 4/8/23 11:24, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Ping
On 3/31/23 19:37, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Update ghostscript to the latest release
Ping
On 3/31/23 19:37, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Update ghostscript to the latest release 10.01.1
Lots of changes, most of which are considered bugfixes.
This release deprecates the old PDF interpreter (the new
one was already default in 10.0.0).
Other changes:
* Remove workaround to handle
Update ghostscript to the latest release 10.01.1
Lots of changes, most of which are considered bugfixes.
This release deprecates the old PDF interpreter (the new
one was already default in 10.0.0).
Other changes:
* Remove workaround to handle different version string
formats - not needed
bowser pointed out (thanks!) that I forgot to update MASTER_SITES
when working around the version confusion (10.00.0 and 10.0.0 are used
inconsistently). Fix attached.
On 10/4/22 16:16, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Here's the update to ghostscript 10.0 with the version bump to the
s
Here's the update to ghostscript 10.0 with the version bump to the
shared lib.Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.124
diff -u -p -r1.124 Makefile
--- Makefile 3 Jul 20
ase
Fair enough, here's the adapted patch if anyone wants to play with it
before.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.124
diff -u -p -r1.124 Makefile
--- Makefile 3 Ju
On 2022/09/23 12:06, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> On Thu Sep 22, 2022 at 08:32:46PM +0200, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > And now also with update-patches ...
> >
> > On 9/22/22 20:26, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > > Here's an update to ghostscript 10.0.0
> > &
On Thu Sep 22, 2022 at 08:32:46PM +0200, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> And now also with update-patches ...
>
> On 9/22/22 20:26, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > Here's an update to ghostscript 10.0.0
> > Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of confusion whether the version
>
And now also with update-patches ...
On 9/22/22 20:26, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Here's an update to ghostscript 10.0.0
Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of confusion whether the version
is 10.0.0 or 10.00.0, so we need some gymnastics to not break PLIST
substitution.
Since there
Here's an update to ghostscript 10.0.0
Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of confusion whether the version
is 10.0.0 or 10.00.0, so we need some gymnastics to not break PLIST
substitution.
Since there's no documented security content, there's probably no harm
in waiting
On 2022/04/13 12:57, Volker Schlecht wrote:
>
>
> On 4/13/22 12:30, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > That said, I don't think it is necessary to include a pkg-readme for
> > this at all.
>
> Fair enough, here's the patch without pkg/README for completeness' sake.
Thanks, builds went OK so I've commi
On 2022/04/13 12:05, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> This updates ghostscript to 9.56.1
There is a standard format which should be used for pkg-readme files.
That said, I don't think it is necessary to include a pkg-readme for
this at all.
The change is clearly mentioned in upstream's rele
: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.120
diff -u -p -r1.120 Makefile
--- Makefile29 Jan 2022 07:37:14 - 1.120
+++ Makefile29 Jan 2022 17:02:24 -
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ VERSION = 9.55.0
DISTNAME = g
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:22:12AM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 1/29/22 18:12, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
>
> > Index: Makefile
> > ===
> > RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/M
Hi,
On 1/29/22 18:12, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.120
diff -u -p -r1.120 Makefile
--- Makefile29 Jan 2022 07:37:14 - 1.120
kage instead but that's for
another day
- siplify post-install dance
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.120
diff -u -p -r1.120 Makefile
--- Makefile29 Jan 2022 07:37:14 - 1.120
+++ Makefile29 Jan 2022
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 02:38:12PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
>
> > New diff without gsc.
> > We can decide over a solution for this later. Either make the packages
> > explicitely conflict or rename the binary.
>
> I'm watching your tweaks and taking notes, but what's the point in keeping
> a
New diff without gsc.
We can decide over a solution for this later. Either make the packages
explicitely conflict or rename the binary.
I'm watching your tweaks and taking notes, but what's the point in
keeping around all three, and particularly why do we want to keep the
statically linked
to set that flag explicitly anymore,
> ghostscript built and worked fine without. But I didn't know if the reason
> why it was included in the first place was gone, so I kept it.
>
> > - remove most of the weird post-install dance, install gsx and gsc and
> don't enforce strip(
Hi,
On 1/29/22 09:35, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
-CFLAGS = -DSYS_TYPES_HAS_STDINT_TYPES
+CFLAGS += -DSYS_TYPES_HAS_STDINT_TYPES
I actually dont't think we even need to set that flag explicitly
anymore, ghostscript built and worked fine without. But I didn't know if
the
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 09:56:09AM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 09:35:15AM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Some cleanup to the ghostscript port:
> >
> > - do not override CFLAGS
> > - add DEBUG_PACKAGES
> >
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 09:35:15AM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Some cleanup to the ghostscript port:
>
> - do not override CFLAGS
> - add DEBUG_PACKAGES
> - remove most of the weird post-install dance, install gsx and gsc and don't
> enforce strip(
Hi.
Some cleanup to the ghostscript port:
- do not override CFLAGS
- add DEBUG_PACKAGES
- remove most of the weird post-install dance, install gsx and gsc and don't
enforce strip(1)
ok?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/
Hi,
On 1/25/22 20:09, Matthias Kilian wrote:
Everything looked ok for me. Thanks for working on the update. If
there are no complaints from other people, I'll commit it later
this week.
Ok, cool!
Do you still want to take maintainership? Then I'll
adjust MAINTAINER accordingly.
Sure, I'll
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 07:19:42PM +0100, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 05:56:21PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> > Sorry to bother you about it, but did you get around to having a look at the
> > patch?
>
> Looks good so far, I also ran dpb -uR to rebuild any packages dep
Hi, and sorry for the delay,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 05:56:21PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> Sorry to bother you about it, but did you get around to having a look at the
> patch?
Looks good so far, I also ran dpb -uR to rebuild any packages depending
on it, without any problems.
I'll do some
.
Thanks! I'll have a look and do some tests during this week.
Ciao,
Kili
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.117
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.117 Makefile
--- Makefile
ndex: Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
> retrieving revision 1.117
> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.117 Makefile
> --- Makefile 28 Feb 2021 12:40:28 - 1.117
> +++ Makefile 16 Jan 2022 16:10:46 -
>
in ports is too old.
> >
> > I bumped the shared object version from 15.0 to 16.0 - not sure if that's
> > advisable and/or necessary, but I think for a first shot it's pretty good ;)
> >
> > Looking forward to everyone's feedback. There seem to be a
.0 - not sure if that's
> advisable and/or necessary, but I think for a first shot it's pretty good ;)
>
> Looking forward to everyone's feedback. There seem to be a bunch of really
> nasty and exploitable bugs in ghostscript versions < 9.55 so I hope we can
> somehow
Update with Makefile in the same order as the current port, I hope this
makes reviewing easier.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.117
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.117 Makefile
And now without the gtk flavour as default ... :(
On 1/14/22 22:56, Volker Schlecht wrote:
... and here's ghostscript using it.
On 1/14/22 22:35, Brad Smith wrote:
On 1/14/2022 2:16 PM, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Hi,
ok, so here's my first attempt. I did manage to use system
... and here's ghostscript using it.
On 1/14/22 22:35, Brad Smith wrote:
On 1/14/2022 2:16 PM, Volker Schlecht wrote:
Hi,
ok, so here's my first attempt. I did manage to use system and ports
libraries, except for jbig2dec. Here the version in ports is too old.
jbig2de
doesn't use library symlinks, there should only be
the .so.${LIBgs_VERSION}
Fixed.
By the way, the removed share/ghostscript/${VERSION}/Resource/Init/
files are now compiled in. If there's a value in having them, we can get
them back with --disable-compile-inits. I just didn't se
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 08:26:28PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2022/01/14 17:05, Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> > As this new version is no longer 'gnu ghostscript', shouldn't the path
> > change
> > to just print/ghostscript?
>
> No because there is an
On 2022/01/14 17:05, Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> As this new version is no longer 'gnu ghostscript', shouldn't the path change
> to just print/ghostscript?
No because there is another subdirectory under print/ghostscript
Maybe it could change to something else, but should
On 2022/01/14 20:20, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> : +FLAVOR?= no_x11
>
> not sure but having this as default might well cause issues with other ports
scrub the "not sure"; libspectre requires a not no_x11 build
and that's depended on by various other ports, we can't have a no_x
re the version in ports is too old.
>
> I bumped the shared object version from 15.0 to 16.0 - not sure if that's
> advisable and/or necessary, but I think for a first shot it's pretty good ;)
>
> Looking forward to everyone's feedback. There seem to be a bunch of real
hat's
> advisable and/or necessary, but I think for a first shot it's pretty good ;)
>
> Looking forward to everyone's feedback. There seem to be a bunch of really
> nasty and exploitable bugs in ghostscript versions < 9.55 so I hope we can
> somehow get a more rec
;s
pretty good ;)
Looking forward to everyone's feedback. There seem to be a bunch of
really nasty and exploitable bugs in ghostscript versions < 9.55 so I
hope we can somehow get a more recent version into ports.
Kili, I would be willing to take over maintainership, if you want
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 02:48:14PM +0100, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> is there a policy decision (licensing?) for sticking with ghostscript 9.07
> from 2013 in ports, or is the port just hard to maintain / is there a lack
> of time and interest in it?
It's hard to maintain *and
Hi,
is there a policy decision (licensing?) for sticking with ghostscript
9.07 from 2013 in ports, or is the port just hard to maintain / is there
a lack of time and interest in it?
regards,
Volker
This patch by RegisteredOnlyToSay[1] adds the no_cups flavor to
print/ghostscript.
[...] If you look at ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile you'll see
that all cups dependencies are already pretty much separated. Just
edit it slightly and make package.
I added no_cups flavor to my ghosts
Hi,
Reading through the armv7 build failures, it appears that ps2pdf(1)
crashes at runtime, taking a few ports out with it:
http://build-failures.rhaalovely.net/arm/2019-02-07/devel/srecord.log
http://build-failures.rhaalovely.net/arm/2019-02-07/math/dieharder.log
http://build-failures.rhaalovely
This bug prevents my printer from working in 6.2.
Oct 17 14:17:48 ted foo2zjs-wrapper: foo2zjs -r1200x600 -g9920x7016 -p9 -m1 -n1
-d1 -s7 -z1 -u 192x96 -l 192x96 -L 0 -T3-P
Abort trap (core dumped)
The problem is that ghostscript (FLAVOR='a4 gtk') smashes the stack.
Trace
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:25:17PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote:
> Along with the openvpn backport that jca committed, I also backported
> and tested print/ghostscript/gnu. OK?
OK bluhm@
>
> Index: Makefile
> ===
> RC
Along with the openvpn backport that jca committed, I also backported
and tested print/ghostscript/gnu. OK?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.108
diff -u -p -r1.108
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 03:09:00PM +0100, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> looking at an (overdue) update of print/ghostscript/gnu, I'd really
> like to get rid of the a4 flavor. It's stupid, device drivers testing
> for a cpp macro 'A4' are cleary wrong (becau
Hi,
looking at an (overdue) update of print/ghostscript/gnu, I'd really
like to get rid of the a4 flavor. It's stupid, device drivers testing
for a cpp macro 'A4' are cleary wrong (because they can derive the
paper size by other means), and I can't think of many peopl
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 02:52:35PM -0500, gwes wrote:
> Why install cups, avahi, and dbus if you'll never use them?
Because it doesn't harm having it *installed* but *not running*,
and because at the same time avoiding those ports to be installed
as dependencies of ghostscript
cups driver is used. Correct me
> >>if I'm wrong.
> >You're not wrong. And avahi will not run if you don't enable it.
> >
> Why install cups, avahi, and dbus if you'll never use them?
> That's three large packages, three user IDs, etc. etc.
>
ther OS or build you own -- it shouldn't be
difficult to build you own ghostscript from ports with your favorite options.
Oh wait, we even have a framework for it, it's called 'mystuff'.
If I read the code correctly, gs won't queue its output for printing
(its default
1 - 100 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
