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

Bug#649931: marked as done (ghostscript: multiple problems with XMP)

Your message dated Sun, 31 Dec 2023 14:50:32 -0600
with message-id <2318806.iZASKD2KPV@riemann>
and subject line Re: [ghostscript] wontfix
has caused the Debian Bug report #649931,
regarding ghostscript: multiple problems with XMP
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.)


-- 
649931: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=649931
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: ghostscript
Version: 9.04~dfsg-3
Severity: normal

0. ghostscript lies about the toolkit used to create the XMP in x:xmptk.
It uses an identifier normally associated with Adobe's toolkit even
though it does not use that toolkit[0].  The attribute is unspecified by
the XMP specification, so it should probably be removed.

1. The value for rdf:about is not a URI.  XMP is based on RDF, and RDF
requires that rdf:about be a URI.  The XMP specification does as well.
There's really no reason to generate a UUID per document and
rdf:about="" is more meaningful anyway, so again, it should probably be
removed.

2. "uuid:" (as used in xapMM:DocumentID) is not a registered URI scheme.
There is a perfectly good existing URN specification for that, so
"urn:uuid:" should be used instead.  (The use of "adobe:ns:meta/" as a
namespace is unfortunate, but we're stuck with it now.)

There is a PDF demonstrating these bugs in #649909.

(I can clone these into separate bugs if you'd prefer.)

[0] I was actually surprised to see this at first because I stopped work
on XMP upstream because they refused to add a dependency on exempi and I
didn't really feel like reinventing the wheel just for them.  I then
realized that there was no external dependency at all, but instead some
text hard-coded into the source.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages ghostscript depends on:
ii  cdebconf [debconf-2.0]  0.158                       
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]   1.5.41                      
ii  debianutils             4.0.4                       
ii  gsfonts                 1:8.11+urwcyr1.0.7~pre44-4.2
ii  libc6                   2.13-21                     
ii  libgs9                  9.04~dfsg-3                 

ghostscript recommends no packages.

Versions of packages ghostscript suggests:
ii  ghostscript-cups  9.04~dfsg-3
ii  ghostscript-x     9.04~dfsg-3
ii  hpijs             3.11.10-1  

-- no debconf information

-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Closing this report since upstream is not going to make these changes.

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:06:59 +0200 bastien ROUCARIES 
<roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> wrote:
> tags 649931 + wontfix
> thanks
> 
> According to upstream;
> 
> In all these cases I do not intend to make any changes. These do not cause 
any
> current problems and at least one validity checker is known to parse the XML
> looking for uuid: (number 3 above).
> 
> Removing any of these is (in my opinion) more likely to cause problems with
> validation tools than alleviate them. Of course if any of these can be shown 
to
> cause problems I will be happy to rethink this.
> 
>

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


--- End Message ---
Reply to: