Bugzilla Bug 177659

A new version of GNU ghostscript (8.56.0) is available now.

It solve a lot of bugs.

I attach the updated ebuild that works for me.

Thanks to update the tree.


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Created an attachment (id=118567) [details]
 new ebuild for 8.56.0 version

why did you use such an old ebuild for bumping and not the current one?

what are the changes in this version?

Btw, did you hear about the merger of gpl and esp ghostscript. Any reason to
still work on -gnu now? ;)

In order :

* an old ebuild ? It works for me but i can change 2 lines if you want ;)
* the changes : all the bug fixed in the GPL 8.56 and the changes from the GNU
line, included all the necessary licenses update and proprietary files removal
* for the merger I've see but it's not for the GPL 8.57, but for the gnu
version it will appear more quickly ;)

The licenses and proprietary files problems are the main reason to continue to
maintain a GNU version. In plus the configure/makefile system is more up to
date than GPL version and a lot of patches are included in the gnu tree,
including some drivers. You can see the lack of epatch in the gnu ebuild ;)

Here a part of the announcing email :

This release include many bugs fixed over GNU Ghostscript 8.55, add DMP
printer drivers and ppds (thanks to Sahaya Darcius) and append a patch
number to package version to avoid confusion with GPL release.

This list is from the 8.56 GPL version released by Artifex Software,
Inc. and artofcode LLC :

      * numerous bug fixes and improvements
      * comformance with the Quality Logic CET suite for Postscript has
been improved, a special 'gs_cet.ps' prefix file can be sent with a job
to produce output closer to that of the reference implementation

No more from artifex, see the History.htm in the doc directory for more details
;)

regards.

Created an attachment (id=118604) [details]
up to date ebuuild for 8.56.0

your ebuild is stall based on rev 1.3

-# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-text/ghostscript-gpl/ghostscript-gnu-8.55.ebuild,v
1.6 2006/09/23 02:37:18 vapier Exp $
+# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-text/ghostscript-gnu/ghostscript-gnu-8.55.ebuild,v
1.3 2007/04/07 16:22:09 opfer Exp $


Can you please try to just rename 8.55 to 8.56

the 8.55 as it is now, I mean.

What ? I've changed all in the file but not this version number that depend on
the cvs commit and you complain about that !? :-D:-D

If you commit this file the number was changed by the cvs program or I'm
completely mad ???

I refuse to upload a new file for this reason ... sorry. This change will be
override by the next commit for a version 1.7

And the 8.55 is based on 1.3 in the portage tree ... no comments about the
rename idea.

Sorry if i'm a little bit agressive but I've no time to waste.

Didier: I for one would like to see an up-to-date GNU Ghostscript in the tree. 
Please change the summary (I don't have permission) to:

app-text/ghostscript-gnu-8.60.0 version bump

Created an attachment (id=131356) [details]
ebuild for GNU-gs 8.60.0


This ebuild file is out of date I know but it works perfectly on my system. I
don't want include the djvu driver because it's not a GPL compatible software
and I'm a GNU maintainer.

The cups patch was removed because this version is a merge between esp and gpl
ghostscript and include natively all esp drivers, including for cups.

Also a lot of bug fixes and improvements in this version. The only bad point is
the need of MAKEOPTS="${MAKEOPTS} -j1" for a good compilation.

Thanks.

Created an attachment (id=131495) [details]
ghostscript-gnu-8.60.0.ebuild

Here's my attempt at fixing a few things to hopefully address some of Stefan's
concerns.  I tried to update the ebuild compared to the in-tree -gpl 8.57 and
the changes in -gpl 8.60 in bug #187502.

I fixed bugs #180996, #184167, #153976 which were previously fixed in -gnu but
not in the version posted in Comment #6.

Also, the ebuild didn't do anything with the cups use flag: i added use_enable
as in the -gpl 8.60 in the bug mentioned above.

bug #180996 confuses me: is -gpl not effected?

Haven't tested yet: its building overnight.

Created an attachment (id=131497) [details]
ebuild_changes.diff

some of the changes are quoting as in in-tree -gpl ebuilds.

Hi, thanks for work on this Colin, just one thing about your ebuild before I
will test it on my gentoo : there is absolutely no need of src/Makefile.in in
the gnu release.

I've completely remove this file and all the work is done in the main
Makefile.in.

All the others changes are promising ;)

Ok, run fine for me, another point in the ebuild : "emake -j1 so all" is ok but
if you really need the library to be installed you need to do an "emake
DESTDIR="${D}" install-so install", or something like that, to install it or
remove the "so" target in the first emake. I don't know anything that link to
this library, so I think it's better to remove this from the ebuild ;)

I attach a diff of my precedent ebuild with your changes. Thanks again.

Created an attachment (id=131524) [details]
patch to my precedent ebuild

I tested your ebuild.  Seems to work fine with gv and evince.

Thanks for clarifying the makefile.in business.

I'm also unclear about the "soinstall" and "make so" business.  If nothing deps
on that .so file than it seems ok to me to not install.  However, there is bug
#189839...

I've never see a dependency of gv to libgs.so !? Of course if it's the case
this issue need to be solved !

gv != gsview

That said, I have no idea what gsview is.

OOps sorry, for confusing this 2 programms !

gsview isn't maintained since march of 2006 but maybe need a libgs.so ... I
will investigate.

Thanks to point it !

http://tsdgeos.blogspot.com/2007/06/okular-and-ps-files.html


we need libgs :)

gsview don't need libgs.so, I've just installed this package and no dependency
for this library ... but okular need it, thanks genstef for the link !

I will change the ebuild to include the so target and post the definitive
ebuild here later.

Created an attachment (id=131667) [details]
ebuild with libgs.so ;)

thank you, in portage.