Please test the update.  Does it work for you?

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2004-August/msg00173.html

Thanks a lot for your response! Great!

Some remarks: Some (non-critical) nits in your rpm-spec:

1. You are invoking autoconf, but do not BuildRequires it.
This breaks building the package in mach-chroots. I guess you probably
have autoconf in your default buildsystem configuration, so this
probably doesn't have any impact for you.
[I don't know what is cause for running autoconf at the place it
currently is run (the ijs-patch alone does not require running
autoconf) but I would recommend to use a pregenerated patch instead of
running autoconf.]

2. /usr/lib/libgs.so should probably be moved to ghostscript-devel
(currently in ghostscript).

3. The ghostscript package should probably be added (It now contains
shared libs)
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

4. IMO, ghostscript-devel should 
Require: ghostscript = %{version}-%{release}
unless you're 100% shure, that all ghostscript-devel releases 
are compatible to ghostscript = %{version} packages

BTW: these issues also apply to FC2's ghostscript (7.07-25)

Thanks for the feedback.

1: this is just what was already shipped -- the only change was to
change a '0' to a '1'.

2: if you do that gs won't run :-)  It dlopen()s it

3: not sure if this is valid -- they are shared libs, but are
dlopened() and so don't need the versioned symlinks

4: again, this is like point 1

The points I most need feedback on are:

a) Does gsview work?
b) Does ghostscript work?

2: sigh, gsview also dlopens "libgs.so" :(

[IMO this is a design flaw; it breaks shared library versioning and
introduces DLL-hell to Linux :(
I already patched one of my rpms to dlopen versioned libraries
cf. https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1786]

3: Isn't it required in case packages actually link against the shared
libs? (At the moment there definitely are none).

a) As far gs seems to be concerned, AFAICT: yes.
[Displaying pages seascape/upside-down doesn't seem to work, but I am
not sure if ghostscript is the culprit]  

b) I haven't noticed any apparent breakdown yet.

I've updated the package for Fedora development in CVS, but I don't
think it's worth re-spinning this update for /sbin/ldconfig and
stricter requires:.

Thanks for the feedback!