Steve, a new ghostscript package with your patch applied is uploaded now
(0ubuntu4).
** Changed in: ghostscript (Ubuntu Intrepid)
Status: In Progress => Fix Released
--
ghostscript has a 300% size increase
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/255485
You received this bug notification because y
That is OK with me. Thanks for the patch.
Symlinks are not needed, GS 8.63 also works with the old font location
and the old file names.
I will upload Ghostscript this way now.
** Changed in: ghostscript (Ubuntu Intrepid)
Status: Triaged => In Progress
--
ghostscript has a 300% size inc
Here is a preliminary patch.
Do we need to also provide symlinks into /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts,
or will ghostscript manage to find these fonts on its own?
** Attachment added: "ghostscript-no-fonts.patch"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/16976247/ghostscript-no-fonts.patch
--
ghostscript
examining the two packages, I can confirm that the fonts included in
gsfonts are newer than the ones provided by ghostscript upstream.
ghostscript upstream does, however, include two fonts that gsfonts does
not (Dingbats and StandardSymL). So these two fonts should be shipped
by ghostscript, where
There are two possibilities:
1. Total elimination of the new fonts in the Ghostscript package by
using a modified .dfsg.2 source tarball. According to the GS developers
the fonts in the Ubuntu gsfonts package are better (they plan to merge
in the improvements of the Ubuntu package). The copyright
btw, I don't think this OR dep really fixed anything - both ghostscript-
fonts and gsfonts have ended up on the alpha-4 alternate CD, for
instance. It ended up being less critical due to space savings
elsewhere on the CD, but AFAICS this problem is still unresolved.
** Changed in: ghostscript (Ub
Does using this OR dependency result in any integration issues in the
short term? I.e., does ghostscript now expect the fonts to be present
in a certain location, as provided by ghostscript-fonts?
--
ghostscript has a 300% size increase
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/255485
You received this bu
Fixed in ghostscript 8.63.dfsg.1-0ubuntu2 by splitting the fonts into
their own ghostscript-fonts sub package and made ghostscript depending
on gsfonts OR ghostscript fonts. This solves the problem with the
alpha4. The real solution is to eliminate the gsfonts package which
should be done by the De
Till, can we get this fixed on Monday or Tuesday, so that it makes
alpha-4?
** Changed in: ghostscript (Ubuntu Intrepid)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Till Kamppeter (till-kamppeter)
--
ghostscript has a 300% size increase
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/255485
You received this bug notificatio
Could/should the ghostscript binary package split the fonts out into a
separate binary package, named "gsfonts"? There appear to be a number
of packages that depend on gsfonts directly, so I think it makes sense
to keep the binary name around. I suppose this would imply some
compatibility layer,
I have asked the upstream developers on IRC and they tell that these
fonts are the Ghostscript standard fonts and so they replace the gsfonts
package.
So I would suggest then to take the gsfonts package from the distro to
simplify maintenance. WDYT? Or was something special added to the
gsfonts pa
11 matches
Mail list logo
