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

Bug#886733: okular fails to render some text



reassign 886733 libpoppler64
found 886733 poppler/0.48.0-2+deb9u1
notfound 886733 okular/4:16.08.2-1
thanks

Hi,

getting over the Debian patches added with the latest security update, I
realized that patch "CVE-2017-14519.patch" causes the problem of the
text disappearing (with the PDF document I tested with).

When I build the package without that patch, the text is there again.

On 2018-01-12 20:11, Carsten Knoll wrote:
> Questions: is there a reasonable way to change the library okular uses?
> I.e. compiling poppler by myself or undo the update?

As a workaround for now, you could for example

* reinstall the old version (0.48.0-2) of the Poppler packages (you can
explicitly specify the version number to use using `apt install
PACKAGENAME1=0.48.0-2 PACKAGENAME2=0.48.0-2 [...]`). Note that you will
probably have to specify all currently installed Poppler packages since
they have dependencies on each other.
(You will however probably get the version from stretch-security again
after a while if you have unattended-upgrades enabled, which your video
suggests).

* rebuild the package from stretch-security with the patch mentioned
above removed. (Please let me know in case you need further details on
this.)


> Why is evince not affected? AFAK it also uses poppler?

I am not sure. AFAIK, poppler also has parts that are specific to Qt
(which Okular uses) and GLib (which evince uses) for example. It might
be something there or Evince uses other functions in some places or ...

> Currently this bug is associated with package okular.
> Shouldn't it be associated with some poppler-package? If so, with which one?

Yes, I think it should be reassigned. This email should cause the bug to
be reassigned to package "libpoppler64" for now. (I am not totally sure
whether it is actually the correct binary package, so if anybody knows
better, please feel free to correct this if it is relevant.)


Regards,
  Michael


Reply to: