After the build process has finished, I have 3 ghostcript binaries: 1. gs - statically linked to ghostscript libraries 2. gsc - dynamically linked to gs libs 3. gsx - dynamically linked to gs libs The last two are identical, which seems to be caused by the fact I build with neither GTK2 or GTK3. Are there any *functional* differences between gs and gsc? For a distribution, it seems somewhat wasteful to ship both the gs and gsc binaries, as the first is quite huge (~27 MByte). The shared library is required anyway, and gsc is only a few kByte.
gsc is functionally equivalent to gs. gsx, for its default device, uses the "display device" to display the rendered output in a gtk+ widget (rather than the plain X11/Xt window used by the x11 devices included in gs/gsc. Every distribution I know ships gsc, they just rename it to gs. I don't know any distribution that ships gsx nor the "normal" gs. The reason gs (and libgs.so) is "huge" (although, 27Mb isn't remotely what I'd call "huge") is because, but default, the initialisation files, Postscript resource files, standard fonts, CMaps and iccprofiles are all built into the binary as a rom file system. No distribution I know ships Ghostscript with the romfs.