Re: Bug#329425: RFA: psutils -- A collection of PostScript document handling utilities

2005-09-23 Thread Jay Berkenbilt
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I use these and would be happy to adopt the package. > > OK, that sounds good, and thanks. I just uploaded 1.17-19 which seems > to be doing fine with the autobuilders. Sounds good. I'm at the tail end of

Re: Bug#329425: RFA: psutils -- A collection of PostScript document handling utilities

2005-09-23 Thread Rob Browning
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I use these and would be happy to adopt the package. OK, that sounds good, and thanks. I just uploaded 1.17-19 which seems to be doing fine with the autobuilders. (I had also wondered, if further upstream development still isn't likely, if there mig

Re: Bug#329425: RFA: psutils -- A collection of PostScript document handling utilities

2005-09-22 Thread Glyn Edwards
> The point in bug #159888 about psmerge being a horribly brittle kludge > and ought to be superseded by a ghostscript wrapper is well made, but > that does not mean that the same point applies to, say, psselect or > psnup. The psmerge from seismic unix is very useful. I don't think it was ever pa

Re: Bug#329425: RFA: psutils -- A collection of PostScript document handling utilities

2005-09-21 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 10:07:12PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: >> (For example, some postscript files explode in size when they are >> passed through ghostscripts pswrite backend - which is more or less by >> design. Others become smaller, bu

Re: Bug#329425: RFA: psutils -- A collection of PostScript document handling utilities

2005-09-21 Thread Jay Berkenbilt
I use these and would be happy to adopt the package. -- Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#329425: RFA: psutils -- A collection of PostScript document handling utilities

2005-09-21 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 10:07:12PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > (For example, some postscript files explode in size when they are > passed through ghostscripts pswrite backend - which is more or less by > design. Others become smaller, but in any case this ought to be kept > orthogonal from simp

Re: Bug#329425: RFA: psutils -- A collection of PostScript document handling utilities

2005-09-21 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have also wondered a bit about the current status of the domain. Is > psutils still needed, or are there better, more actively pursued > alternatives now? For example, can similar functionality be provided > by convenience wrappers around ghostscript

Bug#329425: RFA: psutils -- A collection of PostScript document handling utilities

2005-09-21 Thread Rob Browning
Package: wnpp I'd like to give up maintainership of psutils. As it stands now, there hasn't been any upstream work on it in a long time, and my impression from the last time I spoke with the author was that he wasn't sure when he might be able to work on it heavily again. It also looks like fix