Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>
>> The subject of the two Ghostscripts came up last October, but we didn't
>> really discuss it:
>>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-10/msg00598.html
>>
>> The canonical Ghostscript is developed by Artifex Software Inc:
>>
>> https://ghostscript.com/
>>
>> We package GNU Ghostscript, which is a fork of Artifex's Ghostscript:
>>
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/
>>
>> Both programs are distributed under the AGPL, as far as I can tell. But
>> Artifex Ghostscript is actively developed, which I think is very
>> important for C software that is designed to handle untrusted input.
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. GNU Ghostscript seemed to go
> mostly-inactive[0] after Artifex changed to AGPL in 2013[1]. The latest
> "upstream" release is 9.21[2], we have 9.14.0 (from 2014!).
>
> I'm in favor of switching to the active fork.

Me too.  In fact, I once tried to package Artifex Ghostscript, but
failed in the attempt to unbundle libraries.

-- 
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net