[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#731140: marked as done (ghostscript: on PDF files with embedded fonts, ps2pdf changes the way fonts are rendered)

Your message dated Thu, 07 Mar 2024 21:37:41 -0600
with message-id <2521310.irdbgypaU6@riemann>
and subject line Re: Bug#731140: ghostscript: on PDF files with embedded fonts, ps2pdf changes the way fonts are rendered
has caused the Debian Bug report #731140,
regarding ghostscript: on PDF files with embedded fonts, ps2pdf changes the way fonts are rendered
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
731140: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731140
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: ghostscript
Version: 9.05~dfsg-8
Severity: normal

ps2pdf should not change the embedded fonts except by optimizing them
(e.g. compressing them), but a simple test shows that it changes the
way fonts are rendered. I've attached 3 files.

font1.pdf is the original file (generated by pdflatex).
font2.pdf is the file obtained with "ps2pdf font1.pdf font2.pdf".
font.png shows the text of font1.pdf (left) and font2.pdf (right),
as obtained with xpdf.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.11-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=POSIX, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages ghostscript depends on:
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]  1.5.52
ii  gsfonts                1:8.11+urwcyr1.0.7~pre44-4.2
ii  libc6                  2.17-97
ii  libgs9                 9.05~dfsg-8

ghostscript recommends no packages.

Versions of packages ghostscript suggests:
ii  cups-filters [ghostscript-cups]  1.0.41-2
ii  ghostscript-x                    9.05~dfsg-8
pn  hpijs                            <none>

-- no debconf information

Attachment: font1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: font2.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: font.png
Description: PNG image


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:18:21 A.M. CST Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 23:04:41 -0600, Steven Robbins wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:54:19 +0100 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> 
wrote:
> > > font1.pdf is the original file (generated by pdflatex).
> > > font2.pdf is the file obtained with "ps2pdf font1.pdf font2.pdf".
> > > font.png shows the text of font1.pdf (left) and font2.pdf (right),
> > > as obtained with xpdf.
> > 
> > I have repeated the test with ghostscript 10.02.1 and I cannot see any
> > difference (using xpdf, or using evince) between font1 and the output of
> > ps2pdf.
> 
> Well, with the font*.pdf files I had attached in my bug report, I can
> no longer see any difference between font1.pdf and font2.pdf with xpdf
> (or zathura). So I assume that this was actually a bug in xpdf (or
> poppler), which did something wrong concerning font2.pdf.
> 
> I've also compared the rendering of these attached files on a Debian 11
> machine with xpdf, and I cannot see any difference either.
> 
> So I suppose that this bug can be closed.

Thank you for verifying, Vincent!
-Steve

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


--- End Message ---
Reply to: