[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: urg.

From: Erik Sandberg
Subject: Re: urg.
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:03:39 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.7.1

On Saturday 19 February 2005 14.27, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > > > I vote for that.  It has the additional advantage that you still
> > > > have both PS and PDF output with a single backend in case you use
> > > > GS.  Regarding fontconfig I suggest you contact the GS people for
> > > > assistance -- I can imagine that other people have similar needs,
> > > > and maybe a proper solution already exists.
> > >
> > > This would be a nice hack. It would also solve the huge amount of
> > > diskspace necessary for building the web docs. Unfortunately, I
> > > don't think we have enough clout to force an upgrade of GhostScript
> > > everywhere within the next 2 months.
> >
> > lilypond needs a lot of external resources, so why not demand a recent
> > version of gs too?  Before diving into font issues I strongly
> Because GS is a critical infrastructure part, which ties into the
> printing system of Linux distros. Fedora Core 4 will probably ship
> with GS7.07 because the CUPS integration of 8.15 isn't out of beta
> yet. I myself had trouble installing GS8.15 on my machine (I still
> haven't worked out how to properly let it recognize system fonts),
> which leads me to believe that many users will give up on lily 2.6.

If GS 8.15 looks like the best route: Why don't you keep the current ps2pdf 
method as an option (using a flag to ./configure or whatever), and let 
packagers enable the direct PDF output code if they have GS 8.15 available in 
their distro?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]