| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2016/08/09) | 20160810 |
| slayer | how to integrate ghostscript in website ? | 06:18.05 |
| | anybody their | 06:31.58 |
| deekej | hello | 12:58.19 |
| ghostbot | Welcome to #ghostscript, the channel for Ghostscript and MuPDF. If you have a question, please ask it, don't ask to ask it. Do be prepared to wait for a reply as devs will check the logs and reply when they come on line. | 12:58.19 |
| deekej | I'm looking into git log of ghostpdl, and I see a commit from Chris Lidell "Remove LCMS. No cluster differences." | 12:59.25 |
| | The latest version of ghostscript does not use LCMS anymore? | 12:59.46 |
| kens | It uses LCMS2 | 12:59.54 |
| deekej | I see some additional fixes in regards to LCMS after that commit | 13:00.00 |
| | so, the latest version being used for ghostscript is LCMS 2.6, am I right? | 13:00.56 |
| kens | Its LCMS2 I'm vague on the exact version | 13:01.12 |
| chrisl | Yes, 2.6 | 13:02.08 |
| deekej | thank you | 13:02.17 |
| | guys, are you aware that base/ramfs.h is missing a license info? | 14:40.18 |
| | base/ramfs.c has it | 14:40.26 |
| kens | deekej I guess that's an oversight, not that its much use without ramfs.c :-) | 14:53.24 |
| | I'll update it. | 14:53.29 |
| deekej | thanks | 14:53.34 |
| | I also have question about these files: | 14:55.14 |
| kens | I may not be able to answer, but I can try | 14:55.26 |
| deekej | * examples/chess.ps | 14:55.44 |
| | * contrib/japanese/doc/djgpp.txt | 14:55.44 |
| | * contrib/japanese/doc/gdevmag.txt | 14:55.44 |
| | * contrib/japanese/doc/gs261j.* | 14:55.44 |
| | all of the files are copyrighted | 14:55.52 |
| kens | Very possibly | 14:56.04 |
| deekej | are they still necessary to be included in ghostscript source tarball? | 14:56.11 |
| kens | None of them are 'necessary' | 14:56.20 |
| deekej | looking at the dates, they seem to be quite old | 14:56.24 |
| kens | contrib is the 'contributed' devices, we cannot support these as we do not have access ot the relevant hardware. We have no idea if these devices even work | 14:56.50 |
| | chess.ps is just an example file | 14:56.56 |
| deekej | I see | 14:57.06 |
| kens | I suspect thcopyright is for the font | 14:57.18 |
| | And indeed it is | 14:57.27 |
| | If that licence is unsuitable for you, then you'll need to drop the file | 14:57.48 |
| deekej | yes, that's what we're currently doing in Fedora | 14:58.29 |
| kens | Well, the file is merely an example. It won't work wihtout the font, so if you can't use the font, you can't carry the example. | 14:59.10 |
| deekej | I just think it would be nice to have those copyrighted files distributed in a separate archive, but I'm not sure how much more work it would produce for you :-/ | 15:00.15 |
| | AFAIK, those are the only files forcing Fedora, Debian (and probably other distros as well) to regenerate source archives (delete those files) | 15:01.03 |
| kens | Hmmm.... I doubt our release engineer would want to do multiple archives per OS per release | 15:01.06 |
| | We could drop chess.ps easily enough and I would personally love to drop loats of the 'contrib' devices, but I seem to remember when we suggested doing that before Till Kamppeter was not happy | 15:01.52 |
| | OK Commit 684457fff0bb980c719cd40de63b6f322068d9ce adds the licence to ramfs.h | 15:03.05 |
| deekej | looking at output of 'git log -r' for those files, they have all been added 3 years ago, without further modification. If they are not updated regularly, it would be nice to have them packed as separate package. But I can't force you to do anything. :) | 15:04.19 |
| | so only people who really need them could download them | 15:04.44 |
| | thx for the commit | 15:04.52 |
| kens | I don't think we will want to do that I'm afraid | 15:04.56 |
| | Drop them maybe, but not separate source archives | 15:05.08 |
| | But its not my call, ask chrisl when he comes back | 15:05.23 |
| deekej | ok, thank you for pointing that out :) | 15:05.42 |
| kens | Hmm, hte *doc* files have copyright notices ? O.O | 15:08.11 |
| deekej | yeah, it surprised me as well :D | 15:13.34 |
| | technically, IMO, you can't modify the doc files without prior permission of author :) | 15:14.29 |
| | does not make much sense for doc files | 15:14.47 |
| kens | I don't know enough of the history of gs261j.txt, I think it has been long superseded though. Possibly the text file is only here as a historical reminder (and acknowledgement) of the work done many years ago to get GS to work well with Far Eastern fonts. | 15:15.00 |
| | The majority of the stuff mentioned in that document we do not ship, or its copyright artifex | 15:17.02 |
| | gdevmag.txt refers to gdevmag.c which has our copyright, so it must have been signed over, I suspect the copyright in the text file is there because nobody on staff can read the file. | 15:20.37 |
| deekej | hehe, me neither :D | 15:23.09 |
| kens | I'd argue if they assigned us copyright then we're good | 15:23.25 |
| | deekej : quick assessment of those files is that they are probably no longer relevant, but we certainly won't do anything about them right now, probably not before the next release either. On the other hand, they are certainly not required in the source in order to build or use Ghostscript. Just barely possibly some Japanese person might be able to use the documentation for something but in at least one case the code it is refer | 15:26.35 |
| | encing is not present, at least not by the names used. | 15:26.35 |
| deekej | ok | 15:27.18 |
| | so, if you would drop those files, it would be for ghostsricpt-9.20? | 15:27.48 |
| kens | Not likely that will be released in September, before our next staff meeting, and I think its unlikely we'll get agreement to remove files before the next meeting | 15:28.20 |
| deekej | ah, ok | 15:28.37 |
| | btw: you have approximate 6-months release cycle? | 15:28.55 |
| kens | Yeah, I was about to say the next release after that will be next year around March | 15:29.16 |
| deekej | in that case, I should wait with the rebase for 9.20 | 15:29.46 |
| kens | Umm it won't likely be removed form 9.20 | 15:30.04 |
| | More likely 9.21 (unless we change version number which is possible) | 15:30.20 |
| deekej | yeah, it's just doing a rebase in august, then doing it again in september is kind of waste of time :) | 15:33.57 |
| | I'll just wait for 9.20 and do rebase of it | 15:34.13 |
| kens | Right, that makes sense | 15:34.26 |
| | deekej did you contact Scott Sackett ? | 15:34.56 |
| | ah, I see you did quote your nick, so it is you :-) | 15:35.11 |
| deekej | initially, I wrote an e-mail | 15:35.33 |
| | I'm looking more at Fedora Licensing guideline. IMHO, it might be possible to look at those doc files as a part of package documentation, thus those files being a content that could be potentionally packed for Fedora. | 15:44.17 |
| | However, the FESCo would have to give the final approval. | 15:44.31 |
| kens | well they are definitely docuemntation | 15:44.37 |
| | I think it likely we'll eliminate them at some point, but it'll atke a little discussion first | 15:44.56 |
| deekej | no problem, better not to rush things :) | 15:45.14 |
| kens | Absolutely | 15:45.35 |
| | I may open a bg report against those files, just so we don't forget the problem | 15:45.57 |
| deekej | for now, adding the copyright for the base/ramfs.h and removing examples/chess.ps might be a good starting point for me | 15:46.21 |
| | then I could just extract patch from git and apply it | 15:46.45 |
| kens | Don't know how people will feel about removing chess.pos but we'll see | 15:46.59 |
| deekej | ok | 15:47.04 |
| | anyway, if you will create the bug report, feel free to add me to CC (dkaspar@redhat.com) | 15:47.34 |
| kens | OK I htink I'll do that, or else we will forget this issue (well, I will anyway) | 15:47.55 |
| deekej | I think I have created account there | 15:47.56 |
| kens | OK Bug 697032 opened, and added dkaspar (you do seem to have an account) | 15:53.55 |
| deekej | thanks | 15:54.01 |
| | thanks for discussion, kens, I need to leave now :) | 15:55.46 |
| kens | Np bye | 15:55.53 |
| fredross-perry | robin - except for there's issues with pagination. NUI basically repaginates the doc, so you get nice behavior when you're looking at more than one page at a time. | 16:52.59 |
| Robin_Watts | fredross-perry: this is mupdf reflow? | 16:53.26 |
| | Yes, MuPDF reflow reflows a single page at a time. | 16:53.41 |
| fredross-perry | see other group | 16:53.47 |
| psmlbhor | hello. I tried to convert a PDF file into PWG format using mudraw (version 1.7a from mupdf-tools repo of Ubuntu). But the output it generates seems corrupted. Command used: $mudraw -otest.raster -Fpwg test.pdf | 17:02.23 |
| Robin_Watts | psmlbhor: Try using the latest version from git. | 17:04.52 |
| psmlbhor | Robin_Watts, using the latest version gives correct output. I wanted to give support for 1.7a in my application because many users use this repo on ubuntu | 17:06.01 |
| Robin_Watts | psmlbhor: Well, ubuntu should update. | 17:06.55 |
| psmlbhor | But is there any problem in that version? | 17:07.55 |
| Robin_Watts | psmlbhor: Well, if it doesn't work with 1.7, and it does work with 1.9, then yes, there is a problem in that version. | 17:10.10 |
| | That's why we do new versions. | 17:10.20 |
| psmlbhor | Robin_Watts, haha, you have a great sense of humour. Thanks for it | 17:10.54 |
| | Forward 1 day (to 2016/08/11)>>> | |
IRC Logs