Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50

From	ken <ken@spamcop.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.postscript
Subject	Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50
Date	2020-06-05 18:31 +0100
Message-ID	<MPG.394491c8d361e77c9898b7@usenet.plus.net> (permalink)
References	<rbd7eh$6d9$1@adenine.netfront.net> <MPG.394436f6422b70c99898b3@usenet.plus.net> <rbdeqr$m4s$1@adenine.netfront.net> <MPG.394466f4ba1a97e59898b5@usenet.plus.net> <5eda75b1$0$13641$e4fe514c@newszilla.xs4all.nl>

Show all headers | View raw

In article <5eda75b1$0$13641$e4fe514c@newszilla.xs4all.nl>, 
luuk@invalid.lan says...

> >> well, I have located the problem. It triggered by a EPS file. After 
run
> >> eps2eps on the EPS, now ghostscript 9.51 does not give any error message.
> >>
> >> I just wonder if it's a bug of ghostscript? After all, 9.50 could live
> >> with the file, and 9.51 could not.
> > 
> > Again, without seeing the file, there's no possible way to tell. It
> > could equally well be that there was something wrong which was
> > previously ignored, and now is not.
> > 
> > 
> > Ken
> > 
> 
> Comparing the eps file before, and after the eps2eps should (or could?) give a clue.

After its been through eps2write (or even epswrite if the version is old 
enough) ? 

Nope.

The output EPS will be utterly different from the input EPS.


		Ken

Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 Jinsong Zhao <jszhao@yeah.net> - 2020-06-05 18:40 +0800
  Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2020-06-05 12:04 +0100
    Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 Jinsong Zhao <jszhao@yeah.net> - 2020-06-05 19:47 +0800
      Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2020-06-05 13:09 +0100
    Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 Jinsong Zhao <jszhao@yeah.net> - 2020-06-05 20:46 +0800
      Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2020-06-05 15:28 +0100
        Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2020-06-05 18:41 +0200
          Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2020-06-05 18:31 +0100
        Re: errors in ghostscript 9.51, but OK with ghostscript 9.50 Jinsong Zhao <jszhao@yeah.net> - 2020-06-06 09:06 +0800

csiph-web