[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:33:36 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Ken Sharp <address@hidden> writes:

> At 20:38 18/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>I think "slightly smaller" was something like a factor of 10.  We are
>>talking about files including literally thousands if not ten thousands
>>of graphics (manuals close to a thousand pages with lots of graphic
>>output included).
> Then maybe you should complain to the software producing that content.

The software producing that content is LilyPond itself (in the case of
the manuals we are talking about, via a tool LilyPond-Book), so there is
no point in complaining since it is under our control.

The question is what the complaint should be, namely what LilyPond does
wrong.  Producing large comprehensive manuals using TeX including lots
of example images generated using the same fonts?

To me that sounds like a stock typesetting task with mainstream tools
that Ghostscript should be suitable for.

But obviously you think there must be something wrong with the way we
are generating and including a large amount of images into one document.

Would you be willing to help us figure out a different way in which we
could make this work?  In particular Masamichi Hosoda has invested
months of work chasing various Ghostscript versions and their
idiosyncrasies and figuring out the best-suited TeX engines to be using
for that task, so if there is an easy solution he and others have
overlooked, it certainly would help having someone on board who has a
clue about where Ghostscript is and should be heading.

> I already said I would discuss this further, berating me will not
> induce me to make changes.

I don't see where explaining the use case for which the availability of
the option makes much more of a difference than what you thought it
would does amount to "berating" you.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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