Bug#293179: tetex-bin: Bug in font pcrr7tn with dvips: Backticks wrong
On 02.02.05 Frank Küster (frank@kuesterei.ch) wrote:
> Hans Baier <hansbaier@web.de> schrieb:
Hi all,
> >>Can you send us an example where the backticks are incorrect?
> >>
> > Your example nfssfont.ps is renderen incorrect on my system.
>
> Just to make sure what we expect to see, and what we do see: The first
> line of the punctuation stuff reads:
>
> min, min: min; `min' ¿min? ¡min! (min) [min] min* min.
>
> (I hope the inverted ? and ! are encoded and displayed correctly in
> the e-mail).
>
> In the file out_powerpc.ps you sent me, I see instead
>
> min,min:min;`min'?`min?!`min!(min)[min]min*min.
>
> That is: The spaces are missing, the inverted "?" is replaced by "?`",
> the inverteed "!" by "!`".
>
Well, I guess what Hans is speaking about is the following:
- create the dvi-file the way he described (pdflatex nfssfont and
latex nfssfont [input as described in the report])
- dvips nfssfont
- rename nfssfont.ps to nfssfont1.ps
- ps2pdf nfssfont1.ps
now compare the dvi with the nfssfont.pdf (the look equally AFAICT).
Now take the nfssfont1.ps. You'll notice that the char 0x58 will look
differently. You'll see that too at the fourth string of the
punctuation test. The same difference occur, when I've converted the
ps into pdf.
Now the pdffonts output:
hille@preusse:~$ pdffonts nfssfont.pdf
name type emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ------------ --- --- --- ---------
TYDPHE+CMR7 Type 1 yes yes no 6 0
GSOYPH+CMR10 Type 1 yes yes no 9 0
ZGXXNR+CMTI10 Type 1 yes yes no 12 0
EMGJUN+StandardSymL Type 1 yes yes no 15 0
AGLIQY+CMTT10 Type 1 yes yes no 18 0
FGPKKH+NimbusMonL-Regu-Extend_850 Type 1 yes yes no 21 0
hille@preusse:~$ pdffonts nfssfont1.pdf
name type emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ------------ --- --- --- ---------
ZMAAAA+Fa Type 1C yes yes no 19 0
Courier Type 1 no no no 17 0
Symbol Type 1 no no no 16 0
GNAAAA+Fd Type 1C yes yes no 15 0
HNAAAA+Fe Type 1C yes yes no 13 0
INAAAA+Ff Type 1C yes yes no 11 0
Seem to bee completely different fonts used. I've performed my tests
using teTeX-2.99.10.20050123, but I guess it shouldn't make much
difference to 3.0.
I suggest to forward that to [tex-fonts] (I'm subsribed to that
list). As jack <at> scriptserver.homeunix.net already mentioned it is
probably a bug in tetex-base (or extra).
Kind Regards,
Hilmar
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: