import matplotlib
/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/matplotlib/__init__.py:698:
UserWarning: matplotlibrc text.usetex can not be be used with ps backend
unless ghostscript-8.16 or later is available on your system
warnings.warn('matplotlibrc text.usetex can not \
matplotlib.__version__
'0.86.2cvs'
gv -v
gv 3.5.8
Do I need an update ?
Nils
Hi Nils,
>>> import matplotlib
/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/matplotlib/__init__.py:698:
UserWarning: matplotlibrc text.usetex can not be be used with ps backend
unless ghostscript-8.16 or later is available on your system
warnings.warn('matplotlibrc text.usetex can not \>>> matplotlib.__version__
'0.86.2cvs'
gv -v
gv 3.5.8Do I need an update ?
gv is not the same as ghostscript. Try gs -v.
Maybe I got a little overzealous with the version requirement, but there have
been lots of posts to this mailing list complaining about bad boundingboxes
in postscript files with the usetex option, and all of them have been solved
by updating to gnu-ghostscript-8.16. If you find this requirement too
restrictive, please let me know and I will consider ways to alter mpl
(perhaps raise a warning instead of an error.)
Darren
On Friday 20 January 2006 07:28, Nils Wagner wrote:
Darren Dale wrote:
gv is not the same as ghostscript. Try gs -v.
Oh dear. On Fedora Core 4 this is still reporting only version 7.07.
and all [reported problems] have been solved by updating to gnu-ghostscript-8.16.
Sigh.
Steve Walton
Stephen Walton wrote:
Darren Dale wrote:
gv is not the same as ghostscript. Try gs -v.
Oh dear. On Fedora Core 4 this is still reporting only version 7.07.
and all [reported problems] have been solved by updating to gnu-ghostscript-8.16.
To save you some aggravation, I just did this on my Fc3 box, so here's the short of it:
# try to remove it, this will fail but the error message is what you're after:
rpm -e ghostscript
# note which version of libgs.so is needed by ImageMagick or anything else.
# Tatoo it on your forehead
# Now, blow it away for real:
rpm -e --nodeps ghostscript
cd /your/gsdownload/dir # I got 8.50, the current gnu one.
./configure
make
sudo make install
make so
sudo make soinstall
# now, you need to relink the shared libs so other things keep working:
cd /usr/lib/
# go to mirror, read the proper .so number off your forehead:
ln -s /usr/local/lib/libgs.so libgs.so.YOURNUMBER
I don't seem to have broken anything too serious with this, other than my rpm dependency chain. Oh well, life can't all be roses and happiness.
Cheers,
f
Fernando Perez wrote:
cd /your/gsdownload/dir # I got 8.50, the current gnu one.
There are two parallel versions of ghostscript about whose relationship I'm unclear. Version 8.50+ comes from www.ghostscript.com and is called "AFPL Ghostscript". Fedora ships with the one from the GNU project, is at version 8.16 and is obtained via ftp://ftp.gnu.org/ftp/ghostscript.
Steve
Stephen Walton wrote:
Fernando Perez wrote:
cd /your/gsdownload/dir # I got 8.50, the current gnu one.
There are two parallel versions of ghostscript about whose relationship I'm unclear. Version 8.50+ comes from www.ghostscript.com and is called "AFPL Ghostscript". Fedora ships with the one from the GNU project, is at version 8.16 and is obtained via ftp://ftp.gnu.org/ftp/ghostscript.
It _is_ confusing. I used 'GPL ghostscript' from:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/
version 8.50 as listed on that page. I haven't the foggiest idea how that number maps to gnu-ghostscript, CUPS-ghostscript, or anything else.
All I know is that I got mpl to shut up after installing this 
Cheers,
f
I have actually read the AFPL as a way to try and understand the
difference. I think the only difference between the AFPL and GPL is
that the GPL allows you to charge someone for the service of
distributing a copy of the software where the AFPL does not. (I could
sell CD's of GPL ghostscript if I wanted to, but anyone who bought
them must be free to give away copies to whoever they want. I don't
know if the AFPL would allow me to even charge for the media cost.)
I have no idea why this small difference has lead to at least two
different branches of ghostscript.
Ryan
On 1/24/06, Fernando Perez <Fernando.Perez@...179...> wrote:
Stephen Walton wrote:
> Fernando Perez wrote:
>
>
>>cd /your/gsdownload/dir # I got 8.50, the current gnu one.
>
>
> There are two parallel versions of ghostscript about whose relationship
> I'm unclear. Version 8.50+ comes from www.ghostscript.com and is called
> "AFPL Ghostscript". Fedora ships with the one from the GNU project, is
> at version 8.16 and is obtained via ftp://ftp.gnu.org/ftp/ghostscript.It _is_ confusing. I used 'GPL ghostscript' from:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/
version 8.50 as listed on that page. I haven't the foggiest idea how that
number maps to gnu-ghostscript, CUPS-ghostscript, or anything else.All I know is that I got mpl to shut up after installing this
Cheers,
f
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Matplotlib-users mailing list
Matplotlib-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-users
Hi,
I have no idea why this small difference has lead to at least two
different branches of ghostscript.
I think this:
http://www.artifex.com/licensing/
was the point. In other words, AFPL ghostscript is dual licenced...
Best,
Matthew
Ryan Krauss wrote:
I have actually read the AFPL as a way to try and understand the
difference. I think the only difference between the AFPL and GPL is
that the GPL allows you to charge someone for the service of
distributing a copy of the software where the AFPL does not. (I could
sell CD's of GPL ghostscript if I wanted to, but anyone who bought
them must be free to give away copies to whoever they want. I don't
know if the AFPL would allow me to even charge for the media cost.)I have no idea why this small difference has lead to at least two
different branches of ghostscript.
Aladdin wanted to make money by selling Ghostscript but still play sorta nice
with the open source world. So when they make a stable release, it is under the
AFPL for N years, then it reverts to the GPL. I think the FSF may have
officially forked the project, too, but I'd have to reread the webpages to be
sure. And I don't actually care enough to do so.
--
Robert Kern
robert.kern@...287...
"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter
I read somewhere recently that the gnu-ghostscript project was renamed
gpl-ghostscript. Who needs a drink?
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 17:55, Robert Kern wrote:
Ryan Krauss wrote:
> I have actually read the AFPL as a way to try and understand the
> difference. I think the only difference between the AFPL and GPL is
> that the GPL allows you to charge someone for the service of
> distributing a copy of the software where the AFPL does not. (I could
> sell CD's of GPL ghostscript if I wanted to, but anyone who bought
> them must be free to give away copies to whoever they want. I don't
> know if the AFPL would allow me to even charge for the media cost.)
>
> I have no idea why this small difference has lead to at least two
> different branches of ghostscript.Aladdin wanted to make money by selling Ghostscript but still play sorta
nice with the open source world. So when they make a stable release, it is
under the AFPL for N years, then it reverts to the GPL. I think the FSF may
have officially forked the project, too, but I'd have to reread the
webpages to be sure. And I don't actually care enough to do so.
I think all this adds up to it would be nice to be free of this dependency :).
On 1/24/06, Darren Dale <dd55@...163...> wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 17:55, Robert Kern wrote:
> Ryan Krauss wrote:
> > I have actually read the AFPL as a way to try and understand the
> > difference. I think the only difference between the AFPL and GPL is
> > that the GPL allows you to charge someone for the service of
> > distributing a copy of the software where the AFPL does not. (I could
> > sell CD's of GPL ghostscript if I wanted to, but anyone who bought
> > them must be free to give away copies to whoever they want. I don't
> > know if the AFPL would allow me to even charge for the media cost.)
> >
> > I have no idea why this small difference has lead to at least two
> > different branches of ghostscript.
>
> Aladdin wanted to make money by selling Ghostscript but still play sorta
> nice with the open source world. So when they make a stable release, it is
> under the AFPL for N years, then it reverts to the GPL. I think the FSF may
> have officially forked the project, too, but I'd have to reread the
> webpages to be sure. And I don't actually care enough to do so.I read somewhere recently that the gnu-ghostscript project was renamed
gpl-ghostscript. Who needs a drink?-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Matplotlib-users mailing list
Matplotlib-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-users