Re: ghostscript improvements in gub

2010-09-07 Thread Graham Percival
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10:50PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op dinsdag 31-08-2010 om 22:07 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham > Percival: > > > Should I build GUB from the current head (i.e. including the > > merged ghostscript branch), or should I keep on using the > > 2.13.30-tagged v

Re: ghostscript improvements in gub

2010-08-31 Thread Graham Percival
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10:50PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op dinsdag 31-08-2010 om 22:07 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham > Percival: > > > Should I build GUB from the current head (i.e. including the > > merged ghostscript branch), or should I keep on using the > > 2.13.30-tagged v

Re: ghostscript improvements in gub

2010-08-31 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Op dinsdag 31-08-2010 om 22:07 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham Percival: > Should I build GUB from the current head (i.e. including the > merged ghostscript branch), or should I keep on using the > 2.13.30-tagged version of GUB ? The changes in GUB are steps towards upstream integration. IWB

ghostscript improvements in gub

2010-08-31 Thread Graham Percival
Hi Jan, Should I build GUB from the current head (i.e. including the merged ghostscript branch), or should I keep on using the 2.13.30-tagged version of GUB ? Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/