[bug #66323] [gropdf] rendering differences between PostScript and PDF output?

[anonymous]

Follow-up Comment #34, bug #66323 (group groff):

Agree with your diagnosis on the на kerning, I think I'm using a mismatched
font/metadata pair on purpose (you can see the difference in the fonts between
our two PDFs in how <> is rendered, and the shape of the cyrillic — the
metrics seem equivalent between our renders and clearly match yours more
correctly than mine).
Guess I'll have to figure out how to break it in the same way. Not a groff
issue.

All renders fine on HEAD (bed13e17e50e80a20e42bd396857cb55cb1d0418), can
confirm all the fonts showing up with a good text layer, polyomino renders
fine, colours the same, adding … to a section heading works and shows up in
the bookmarks. Thanks for the -P-e + ps2pdfwr recompression trick (the full
chain takes 23 seconds for me, but I don't need to embed Chinese all that
often thankfully). The micron-scale isn't a material difference at all.

Can also confirm the different location of the "Contents" &c. on the TOC page.
But the one in -Tpdf seems to actually match the rest of the document better?
idk, this is too far in the weeds for me.

Also, the -Tps TOC bleeds colours, but the -Tpdf one doesn't (bleeding starts
after va_list and va_start lines). This is consistent with my bookworm setup.
Good to see -Tpdf fixes this.

Overall, sans the Contents location, I'd say this is mostly resolved (and
-Tpdf behaves better), thanks.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66323>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature