Quoting Vincent Lefevre (2021-10-01 15:53:38) > On 2021-10-01 14:31:57 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2021-10-01 14:26:02 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2021-10-01 14:17:53 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > In my archives, I can see that the issue occurred with > > > > ghostscript 9.26a~dfsg-0+deb9u1, but 9.27~dfsg-2+deb10u4 isn't > > > > affected on my second testcase. > > > > > > The following PDF file (on which I got the issue with ghostscript > > > 9.26a~dfsg-0+deb9u1) may be a useful testcase: > > > > > > https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02001080v1/document > > > > On this testcase, the issue is actually reproducible with > > ghostscript 9.27~dfsg-2+deb10u4! > > It seems that the issue partly comes from pdflatex: On an old file for > which ps2pdf was correct with ghostscript 9.53.3~dfsg-4, it is now > incorrect still with ghostscript 9.53.3~dfsg-4. But if I regenerate > the intermediate PDF file on an old Debian machine and transfer it to > my current machine, ps2pdf is correct with ghostscript 9.53.3~dfsg-4 > and with ghostscript 9.53.3~dfsg-7 (stable), and also with ghostscript > 9.54.0~dfsg-5. Are you sure you mean 9.53.3~dfsg-7, not 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1? Some upstream changes was backported for -7 and other changes was introduced by -7+deb11u1: https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/g/ghostscript/changelog-9.53.3dfsg-7deb11u1 Possibly related to the recent changes to Ghostscripts SAFER: https://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.55.0/Use.htm#Safer Perhaps recent pdflatex was adapted to handle the change to SAFER, and in doing so became dependent on recent Ghostscript (and perhaps that was then not reflected in packaging of pdflatex)? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature