Re: Ghostscript 9.09 released upstream, Debian on 9.05
Jonas, thank you for the info.
GS 9.09 builds (at least under Ubuntu) with all libraries taken from the
system, no convenience code is used any more. But I do not know whether
all of these libraries are actually available in Debian or whether there
are some being newer in Ubuntu than in Debian or not in Debian at all,
as I did not package these libraries for Ubuntu.
I have packages GS 9.09 for Ubuntu with a ~dfsg source tarball not
containing any of the convenience library code copies. There are also no
source code patches (only some build system patches which most probably
are known to you).
You can find the package and the source tarball for backmerging to Debian on
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ghostscript/9.09~dfsg-0ubuntu1
Till
On 08/23/2013 01:23 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Till Kamppeter (2013-08-23 12:48:36)
>> is Ghostscript in Debian still maintained?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> Or is there anything in Ghostscript 9.06 and newer which does not
>> allow its use in Debian? If so please tell the problem or report it
>> directly upstream (and please post the upstream bug links here).
>
> Recent Ghostscript releases depend on patches to liblcms which has not
> yet entered Debian (see bug#701993). This is not a bug upstream, as the
> Ghostscript project choose to include convenience copies of code,
> something which strongly discouraged in Debian, as it (among other
> things) hurts security maintenance.
>
> (sorry - I thought you were already well aware of all these details,
> Till)
>
>
>> If Ghostscript as it is now is not suitable for Debian any more,
>> should we consider switching over to Poppler?
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. Poppler is used by parts of Debian, and
> Ghostscript is used by other parts of Debian.
>
> If upstreams would like to consider switching between them, they are
> free to do so.
>
> For the (few, I suspect) upstream projects supporting both and therefore
> leaving Debian with a choice, I guess Poppler is generally preferred
> already - but I might be wrong, and it would be good to base such
> choices on concrete analysis, because both projects are alive and well.
>
>
> - Jonas
>
Reply to: