Path: utzoo!telly!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rds95
From: rds95@leah.Albany.Edu (Robert Seals)
Newsgroups: gnu.ghostscript.bug
Subject: Re: Ghostscript 1.3: scanner patch; .exe file
Summary: Are you sure
Message-ID: <1910@leah.Albany.Edu>
Date: 18 Jul 89 14:55:02 GMT
References: <8907170530.0.UUL1.3#5127@aladdin.com>
Distribution: gnu
Organization: The University at Albany, Computer Services Center
Lines: 30

In article <whatever> L. Peter Deutsch writes:
> 2) Snoopy is also right about the reason that the DOS executable crashes.
> I was in such a hurry to put out the release before I left town that
> I accidentally distributed an executable that only runs on 80386 systems.

Are you sure? I have a 386+387 that the distributed executable don't
work on. And another thing (smiley) - thanks for putting together
ghostscript!! It's groovy.

But I have a complaint. The compiling scheme is just dumb. I have a hard
disk named "d:". Yes, I can edit the .bat files (and I do), but I very
rarely get a correctly functioning executable. Ever since v1 (the first
release wasn't numbered, I don't think), I sometimes get this weird glitch
where every file gets warning messages about structure members which don't
exist. There MUST be a cleaner way to get gs compiled on a DOS system.

And a suggestion: is there a way to isolate the physical device output
routines so that I can use my nifty Whizzo graphics board and monitor?
If I could just plug in my own "draw a dot" routine, then we wouldn't
necessarliy be limited to 640x350x1. I seem to recall a fair amount of
device dependence in the code, but I haven't scrutinized it since early
versions.

And more stuph: I see that ghostscript fonts are on the official gnu
"things to make and do" list. I wish I knew more about fonts, cuz this
is really a must. I do know a good amount about writing (reasonably
portable) C code, so if you'd like my help, I'd be happy to assist.
I am, after all, one of those leftist gnu-adherents.

rob