Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: ghostscript-6.51-3
From: Dario Alcocer <[email-masked]>
To: Charles Wilson <[email-masked]>
Cc: Peter Ring <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:23:49 -0800

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Ring <[email-masked]> writes:
    Peter> Please forgive a silly question.

    Peter> I've rebuild the previous release (ghostscript-6.51-1) with
    Peter> X support (mainly for use with xdvik in order to view dvi's
    Peter> with postscript illustrations).

    Peter> While this were not a major hassle (just patch
    Peter> src/unix-gcc.mak a little, don't forget to set XLIBS=Xt SM
    Peter> ICE Xext X11), are there any reason not to release
    Peter> X-enabled binaries for ghostscript? Will gs then not run
    Peter> without the X runtime libraries?

It's better to patch the X11 version of ghostscript, when that is
eventually available (see below.)

>>>>> "Chuck" == Charles Wilson <[email-masked]> writes:

    Chuck> Nope. If you link it against the X libraries, but then try
    Chuck> to run it on a system that doesn't have those DLLs
    Chuck> installed, you'll get "Couldn't find dynamic link library
    Chuck> "libXFOO.dll" in {path...}" errors.

    Chuck> ghostscript can't be distributed in X-linked form until the
    Chuck> cygwin-xfree guys create a setup-installable set of X
    Chuck> packages.  (And perhaps, not even then; it's up to Dario)

Actually, it's my intention that once cygwin-xfree is supported by
setup.exe, I will create a separate package (or maybe just a separate
binary) of Ghostscript that supports X.

-- 
Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc.
[email-masked] -- http://www.helixdigital.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/