[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

From: Ken Sharp
Subject: Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:55:16 +0100

At 00:41 22/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:

> Or, even so, should we take other methods (e.g. using non-embedded PDFs)?

If we figure out a working alternative, we should take it.  The current
set of Ghostscript bugs in 9.22 is still a bit in flux, so it's not
clear yet which alternative actually could work.

Is that a reasonable summary of the current state, Ken?

I'd say so, yes. I can't think of a reasonable alternative right at the moment, which will yield the same or at least similar output file size. Especially given the time scale of our ongoing release. The only other approach I could think of didn't work. If someone has other ideas I'll be happy to try them out or at least think them over.

As I said in my reply (sorry I saw Masamichi's mail first and replied to it first), *if* the fonts were fully embedded which, from a first glance they should be, then you wouldn't need this trickery. You could just use MuPDF to remove the duplicated FontFile objects, because they'd really be identical.

I've no idea why they aren't fully embedded but I'd have to guess its because they are CFF outlines, we don't see a lot of those. So it smells like a bug. I will look at it, as soon as I get some time, but its not likely to be a change we'll put into 9.22 given the state of the release cycle. In fact, realistically, its unlikely I'll even get the time to look at it before the release is complete.

So this is something that probably needs to be looked at after the release, preferably at leisure. Time pressure sort of makes this a lot worse.

More worrying is the fact that when I run the EPS files here with the current release candidate, I don't get one copy of Emmentaler-20 in the output PDF files, I get three. For me that didn't make any difference in the final output file, but it is a concern because I don't know why that would have changed.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]