Bug#355757: (forw) [vincent@vinc17.org: Re: Bug#355757: (no subject)]
----- Forwarded message from Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.org> -----
> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 12:15:56 +0100
> From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.org>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14-vl-r16324 (2007-02-28)
> X-Mailer-Info: http://www.vinc17.org/mutt/
> To: Oleksandr Moskalenko <malex@debian.org>, 355757@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#355757: (no subject)
>
> On 2007-03-01 11:41:37 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > I'm not sure it is contradictory, but the discussion in bug 365506
> > gave a wrong solution. The bug reporter said that the PS file was
> > for A4 paper size, but was converted to Letter paper size (but this
> > is strange since ps2pdf seems to run fine here). What I suggest
> > would be consistent with what is required in this bug: keep the
> > original paper size. For instance, what if the user had an A3 or
> > US-Legal (i.e. larger than A4) PS file and wanted to convert it to
> > PDF? Using /etc/papersize here would clearly be a bad choice.
>
> Well, when I'm saying that ps2pdf seems to run fine, in fact this
> depends on the file. When /etc/papersize is empty (to provide no
> defaults -- i.e. letter is the default), ps2pdf converts some A4
> files into A4 (that's OK), but some other ones (landscape ones?)
> into letter, though both contain:
>
> %%DocumentPaperSizes: a4
>
> But perhaps there is some detection based on the bounding box which
> doesn't work reliably. The landscape file has:
>
> %%BoundingBox: 0 0 595 842
>
> while the portrait file has:
>
> %%BoundingBox: 0 0 596 842
I'd really like to hear what Masayuki, Torsten and Jonas think about this
because it is getting into the realm of a technical decision that maintainers
should agree on before we start sending them more patches for ps2pdf and
pdf2ps.
Regards,
Alex.
Reply to: