On Monday 22 November 2004 20:25, Tim Waugh wrote: > It's probably a discussion best continued [in fedora-devel-list]. On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:12:12AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote: > Not of great benefit to interested parties here. On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 11:38 +0000, Tim Waugh wrote: > I think it fits the remit of fedora-devel-list better: package > upgrades and related issues in the core package set certainly come > under development to my mind. The list is open to any interested > parties to subscribe to, or to read the archives. > > I'm sure those on fedora-devel-list but not fedora-list wouldn't want > to miss out on any insights shared in this forum. Let's keep the > discussion in one place. I write: (1) There seems to be a problem with either ghostscript or with its fonts. Courier fonts are displayed (both in gv and while printing) as MUCH TOO BIG. When printing, they overwrite other text making the output very hard to read. There's been a lot of posting at various places on the web about problems with courier vs. FC3, but no solutions. (2) Does anyone have either rpms of ghostscript-8.15, preferable for AMD 86-64 processors and a recent ghostscript font distribution (6.00 or above), or know a way to get ghostscript to handle courier fonts properly. (3) I just searched fedora-devel-list for anything about ghostscript. Nothing except whether Fedora could legally include ghostscript-8.50, which is under the AFPL license (similar to GPL, but not the same). (4) I can see why there is resistance to porting ghostscript-8.15 to FC3. I've compiled ghostscript a couple of times; each time it took me a couple of days to remember everything that needed to be done and to do it all. This doesn't include including all the patches... So I'd rather have someone else do it. Thanks: -- Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh@xxxxxxxxxxx> Berkeley Linux Team
