[gs-devel] Re: Upcoming Ghostscript 8.60 release

[Till Kamppeter]

Otani-san,

we have reverted your patches in the Ghostscript SVN repositories for 
now. They are now attached to the following bug report as proposed patches:

http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689304

Please check the two regressions and post new patches if you have a fix. 
Thank you.

    Till


Till Kamppeter wrote:
> It seems that the CJK patches break rendering of non-CJK documents, see
> 
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689404
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689405
> 
> The "rev 8185" mentioned in the bug report is the revision with which 
> the CJK patches were introduced.
> 
> Otani-san and Toratani-san, can you check this? Thanks.
> 
>    Till
> 
> 
> Koji Otani wrote:
>> From: Ralph Giles <giles at ghostscript.com>
>> Subject: Re: [gs-devel] Re: Upcoming Ghostscript 8.60 release
>> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:27:37 -0700
>> Message-ID: <20070813202737.GB28970 at ghostscript.com>
>>
>> giles> On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 10:53:02AM -0700, Ray Johnston wrote:
>> giles> giles> > Possibly some documentation about what's automatic and 
>> what is not with
>> giles> > the mkromfs and genint processing is needed to make it easier 
>> to know
>> giles> > how to add files.
>> giles> giles> Probably a good idea. The patch didn't just called 
>> runlibfile on the new giles> library files, without an associated 
>> magic '%% Replace' directive. The
>> giles> attached patch does this, and presumedly also works. I tested 
>> tiger, but
>> giles> not the cjkv support.
>> giles>
>> Thank you. I tested this patch with CJK font. It's OK.
>>
>> giles> Questions:
>> giles> giles> 1. I gather from the implementation of translate_path() 
>> in geninit.c giles> that unix-style paths like (cjkv/cjvkinit.c) are 
>> portable postscript
>> giles> under ghostscript. Is this correct? Might be be cleaner to move 
>> them
>> giles> up a level regardless?
>> giles> giles> 2. Inclusion of the module is conditional on the NOCJKV 
>> symbol. I giles> couldn't figure out what this is for. If it's just 
>> for testing, can
>> giles> it be removed? We wish to avoid unnecessary conditionals in the 
>> code
>> giles>
>> This conditionals for analyzing when problems occur.
>> If with defined NOCJKV problems still occur, we can suspect codes not in
>> CJK patch.
>>
>> ---
>> Koji Otani
>>
> 
>