Re: Ghostrscript/GhostPDL 9.18 Release Candidate 1

Basically, compile inits builds all the initialization, resource and font
files (and ICC profiles) into a ROM filesystem, and links that into the
executable.

The benefit is that the exectuable is essentially self contained, and can
always find the resources it needs.

The down side is that the executable is considerably bigger, and
installer/user customisations are harder.

Most distributions opt to disable it because of the exe size, and to allow
easier customisation of font substitutions and so on.

And, FWIW, we do test with --disable-compile-inits, it was just unfortunate
timing that this slipped through.

Chris



On 24 September 2015 at 16:11, Johannes Meixner <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> On Sep 24 15:03 Chris Liddell wrote (excerpt):
>
>> I believe:
>> http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=commitdiff;h=1ae85e68
>> fixes the issue.
>>
>
> I noticed the new bug report
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696223
> and that it has something to do with "--disable-compile-inits".
>
> When I became maintainer of the ghostscript package in SUSE
> I inherited "--disable-compile-inits" from the past.
>
> I do not know why that is used because by default
> it is not used according to
> ghostscript-9.18rc1/doc/Make.htm#Precompiled_data
>
> Furthermore this documentation seems to indicate
> that it is better not to use "--disable-compile-inits"
> because when it is not used it "simplifies installation,
> improves security, may reduce memory requirements".
>
> Accordingly I have now removed "--disable-compile-inits"
> from our configure switches which makes it also working.
>
> I really want to have the SUSE/openSUSE Ghostscript
> as much as possible in compliance with upstream.
>
> Therefore I would like to get a recommendation
> if we (i.e. SUSE/openSUSE) should continue using
> "--disable-compile-inits" or if we should better drop it.
>
> Mainly I wonder if it could be perhaps needed for this
> or that special use case that the initialization files
> are not compiled into the executable?
>
> In general I would appreciate very much recommendations
> what configure options are considered by upstream Ghostscript
> to be "the right ones" so that a Linux distribution would
> provide Ghostscript to their users that works as much
> as possible in compliance with upstream.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
> Johannes Meixner
> --
> SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard,
> Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
>
> _______________________________________________
> gs-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ghostscript.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gs-devel
>

_______________________________________________
gs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://ghostscript.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gs-devel