From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jul 31 06:41:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA29116 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 06:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vector.jhs.no_domain (slip139-92-42-146.ut.nl.ibm.net [139.92.42.146]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA29104; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 06:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vector.jhs.no_domain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vector.jhs.no_domain (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA05590; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:35:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199607310935.LAA05590@vector.jhs.no_domain> To: Andreas Klemm Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/print/ghostscript4 From: "Julian H. Stacey" Reply-To: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: Vector Systems Ltd. Address: Holz Strasse 27d, 80469 Munich, Germany Phone: +49.89.268616 Fax: +49.89.2608126 Web: http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/ Mailer: EXMH 1.6.7, PGP available In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Jul 1996 23:58:00 +0200." Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:35:34 +0200 Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Reference: > From: Andreas Klemm > > On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > Andreas, cc ports, > > Bug report for current ports/print/ghostscript4: > > > > Fonts are installed in /usr/local/share/ghostscript/fonts -rw------- > > Well, I have rw-r--r-- here ... So what could be causing the > problem ... umask of root account ? 077 ? Yes, both my root & jhs logins use csh, with an /etc/csh.cshrc with umask 066 whilst one might react "that's not FreeBSD default", (& indeed FreeBSD src/etc/csh.cshrc is merely a dummy empty file), although development sites might run with umask 002 or 022 many commercial sites (& lots of non commercial too) will not want global read on by default for normal work, so we can assume that last ----------r-- will often get zapped. ... So I'd like to see the Makefile set the access modes on those fonts please, & not leave it to chance (umask of installer). > > Thus if you install 'em you can get 'em, but if you invoke ghostview > > from a web browser, the font access fails. > > Ok, if you have 600 then it's no wonder. > > > Makefile has: > > GS_FONTS_STD= ghostscript-fonts-std-4.01.tar.gz > > pre-install: > > (cd ${PREFIX}/share/ghostscript ; \ > > tar -xzf ${DISTDIR}/${GS_FONTS_STD}) > > > > I only have ghostscript-fonts-std-4.0.tar.gz & its -rw------- in there, > > I'll fetch 4.0.1 next, but its big ... > > -rw-r--r-- ghost/ftp 25994 28 Jun 20:35 1996 fonts/a010013l.pfb > -rw-r--r-- ghost/ftp 26980 28 Jun 20:35 1996 fonts/a010015l.pfb > -rw-r--r-- ghost/ftp 26882 28 Jun 20:35 1996 fonts/a010033l.pfb > ... Yes, peering in the guts of 4.01 tar binary image: fonts/a010013l.pfb 100644 1132 > > PS WIBNI: ideally for those of us with slow net access, > > ports/ stuff should use for instance 4.0 & then 4.0 + 4.0-4.1.diff, > > to reduce upgrade fetch traffic, > > but I don't know in the specific case of ghostscript > > if a diff was available (after all I'm not maintainer :-) > > It depends on the package ... Many diffs may be larger than > fetching the new release. These files are identical, zero difference ! here's my log: cmp ghostscript-fonts-other-3.53.tar.gz ghostscript-fonts-other-4.0.tar.gz cmp ghostscript-fonts-other-4.0.tar.gz ghostscript-fonts-other-4.01.tar.gz cmp ghostscript-fonts-std-4.0.tar.gz ghostscript-fonts-std-4.01.tar.gz rm ghostscript-fonts-other-3.53.tar.gz ghostscript-fonts-other-4.0.tar.gz ln -s ghostscript-fonts-other-4.01.tar.gz ghostscript-fonts-other-4.0.tar.gz ln -s ghostscript-fonts-other-4.01.tar.gz ghostscript-fonts-other-3.53.tar.gz rm ghostscript-fonts-std-4.0.tar.gz ln -s ghostscript-fonts-std-4.01.tar.gz ghostscript-fonts-std-4.0.tar.gz All that wasted time & money fetching identical files is .. shall we say .. rather annoying ;-) If you can change the Makefile, we can save others time & money :-) > > However if ports maintainers could use diffs where available, > > rather than pointing at new mega dists, it could help, > > (no complaint, just a WIBNI (Wouldn't It Be Nice If ...) :-) > > I prefer clean packages. Should be done only if the diffs are > definitively smaller than fetching the new release. They Are, Identical in fact :-) Julian -- Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/