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

Bug#480700: marked as done (gs-esp: Foreground and background colors are not honored when converting .eps to .pdf)

Your message dated Thu, 04 Jan 2024 21:40:24 -0600
with message-id <1979363.IobQ9Gjlxr@riemann>
and subject line Re: [gs-esp]
has caused the Debian Bug report #480702,
regarding gs-esp: Foreground and background colors are not honored when converting .eps to .pdf
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.)


-- 
480702: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=480702
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: gs-esp
Version: 8.15.3.dfsg.1-1
Severity: normal


I use pdflatex to build work presentations frequently.  My figures
are usually created using gnuplot as encapsulated postscript files,
and then converted to pdf's using epstopdf, which in turn calls gs-esp.

In the past, the pdf's I would create automatically matched their text
and lines to the foreground colors specified in the
presentation.tex file.  After converting foo.eps to foo.pdf, shows me a
black on white figure.  When the presentation style is
white-on-blue, the pdf produced by pdflatex would include the figure
with white text and lines instead of the usual black.  Transparent parts
of the original figure are honored.

With the current versions of gs-esp, the outputed figure foo.pdf gets
incorporated as black on black (hence hard to read).

I have an example .eps file that have been converted to .pdf using both old and new
versions of gs-esp.  When pdflatex is run, the old versions match the
specified colors but the new versions don't.  For this reason, I believe
the bug is in gs-esp, and not pdflatex.  I've recompiled the source for
gs-esp_7.07.1, and the old version give me the desired bahavior.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.25-tim18 (SMP w/2 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages gs-esp depends on:
ii  gs-common              0.3.13-0.1        Common files for different Ghostsc
ii  libc6                  2.7-6             GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libcupsimage2          1.2.7-4etch2      Common UNIX Printing System(tm) - 
ii  libcupsys2             1.3.5-1+b1        Common UNIX Printing System(tm) - 
ii  libfontconfig1         2.5.0-2           generic font configuration library
ii  libgnutls13            2.0.4-1           the GNU TLS library - runtime libr
ii  libice6                2:1.0.4-1         X11 Inter-Client Exchange library
ii  libjpeg62              6b-14             The Independent JPEG Group's JPEG 
ii  libpaper1              1.1.23            library for handling paper charact
ii  libpng12-0             1.2.15~beta5-3    PNG library - runtime
ii  libsm6                 2:1.0.3-1+b1      X11 Session Management library
ii  libstdc++6             4.3-20080116-1    The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii  libtiff4               3.8.2-7           Tag Image File Format (TIFF) libra
ii  libx11-6               2:1.0.3-7         X11 client-side library
ii  libxext6               1:1.0.3-2         X11 miscellaneous extension librar
ii  libxt6                 1:1.0.5-3         X11 toolkit intrinsics library
ii  zlib1g                 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-11 compression library - runtime

Versions of packages gs-esp recommends:
ii  gsfonts       1:8.11+urwcyr1.0.7~pre43-2 Fonts for the Ghostscript interpre
ii  psfontmgr     0.11.10-0.1                PostScript font manager -- part of

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:27:56 +0000 Bastien ROUCARIES 
<roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> wrote:
> forcemerge 480702 480700
> tags 480702 + moreinfo
> thanks
> 
> I could not reproduce this bug. Could you please retest and send to this bts 
the test file. Feel free to close thus bug

Requested example file not provided, so closing this issue.   Feel free to re-
open with an example file.

-Steve

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


--- End Message ---
Reply to: