From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  3 May 2013 10:22:13 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <922ae5cff3657bef4ac9c1c7bfc55e18@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <64e57b5cc889082953a7f022f534b833@quintile.net>
References: <64e57b5cc889082953a7f022f534b833@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] anyone attempted to build ghostscript recently?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 53e39a0c-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri May  3 10:19:43 EDT 2013, steve@quintile.net wrote:
> Thinking of tackeling ghostscript again but failed at the first hurdle,
> it needs autotools to build...

oh please do!

one question, though.  are there better alternatives than ghostscript
for pdf?  ghostscript usually fails for simple documents on my amd64
machine with (to me) inscrutible postscript stack traces.  i find that
often ghostscript also fails on linux for the same document, but e.g.
evince does not.

- erik