[Epsonepl-users] Suse 8.1 (Re: [Epsonepl-devel] Re: Re[2]: Epson EPL-5900L files)

[Hin-Tak L. <hin...@ya...>]

(I have renamed the Subject line, and moved this onto the user
list instead of the devel list).

Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:21:58 +0100
> Thomas Hecker <th...@no...> wrote:
> 
> [please use the mailing list address for these issues]

Roberto: in the mailing list admin interface there is a membership
management section, which you can subscribe people to the
list on their behalf. But I think this issue shouldn't go onto
the devel list...

> 
> 
>>I have a problem installing the epson epl driver:
>>
>>linux:~ # rpm -Uvh epsoneplijs-0.2.1usb-1.i386.rpm
>>Failure: fehlgeschlagene Paket-Abhängigkeiten:
>>        ghostscript-fonts needed by epsoneplijs-0.2.1usb-1 gebraucht
>>        ghostscript = 8.00 conflicates with epsoneplijs-0.2.1usb-1
>>
>>THe System is SuSe 8.1.
>>Is Ghostscript too new or too old?
> 
> 
> Too new. Hin-Tak has contacted ghostscript people to understand
> if the culprit of wrong behaviour it's a bug in gs 8.0 or not.
> In the mean time, ghostscript 8.0 has been declared as "conflicting".

The answer is "Suse 8.1 has the right version. but dependency on
Suse doesn't work as it does on Redhat-derived systems..." ...
More on this below.

> 
> You can ignore the ghostscript-fonts dependency; if you have ghostscript,
> you have fonts too (gs depends on gs-fonts).
> 

I just went to Suse's web site and had a look. Here is what Suse 8.1 ships:

ghostscript-fonts-kanji-7.05.3-57.i586.rpm
ghostscript-fonts-other-7.05.3-57.i586.rpm
ghostscript-fonts-rus-7.05.3-57.i586.rpm
ghostscript-fonts-std-7.05.3-57.i586.rpm
ghostscript-library-7.05.3-57.i586.rpm
ghostscript-serv-7.05.3-57.i586.rpm
ghostscript-x11-7.05.3-57.i586.rpm

That's right - what Redhat called 'ghostscript-' package is split into
3 - the library (which gsview uses), a no-X binary and an X-dependent
binary (e.g. some people runs a print server but don't want XFree86 installed).
We'll have to code for alternative "ghostscript-serv" or
"ghostscript-x11" dependencies or just declare Suse as an anomaly.
(This is probably a SuSe bug, as their rpm specs should explicitly
declare that these packages "Provide: ghostscript").

AND!!!! How come people don't read "FAQ" nor "Requirement" nor "README"
anymore!!! Everywhere where requirement for ghostscript version is mentioned
we also mention "gs -h" as the command to run to show ghostscript version
(and the presence of the ijs device), Asking "what version of
ghostscript do I have" is simply not acceptable (and wasting my time
on a trip to Suse's web site...)...

There is no distro which ships ghostscript 8.0 yet. Probably not for
another year - the license terms of AFPL ghostscript doesn't allow 
redistribution, so until a GNU ghostscript comes out (currently 7.05,
which most current ships), there is not a possibility of a distro
coming with a newer conflicting ghostscript.

As for the bug, it is a ghostscript bug; and I have narrowed it down to
it being introduced around the time when they were introducing
a new colour-separation feature (DeviceN) around gs 7.30. The faulty page
was all black because somehow using gs 7.30+, white is mapped to black
and black is mapped to black - but in fact blue (and possibly other colour)
is mapped to part-white. The ghostscript people has raised the priority
of the bug from the default medium, and also assigned it to Ralph Leven (one
of the main developers).

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com