Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #1800 > unrolled thread

A bug report for GS

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.postscript

Contents

  A bug report for GS Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2014-02-28 23:53 +0200
    Re: A bug report for GS ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2014-03-01 08:39 +0000
      Re: A bug report for GS ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2014-03-01 10:04 +0000
        Re: A bug report for GS ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2014-03-01 10:21 +0000
        Re: A bug report for GS Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2014-03-01 16:11 +0200
          Re: A bug report for GS ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2014-03-01 19:38 +0000
      Re: A bug report for GS tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2014-03-02 00:45 -0500
        Re: A bug report for GS ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2014-03-02 14:59 +0000
          Re: A bug report for GS tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2014-03-02 20:12 -0500
          Re: A bug report for GS luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 22:51 -0800
            Re: A bug report for GS ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2014-03-03 07:51 +0000

#1800 — A bug report for GS

Bug report:

Read all comments to:
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?41737

One comment there says that I can't login to http://bugs.ghostscript.com

So I post the report here.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1804

In article <ler0gd$l3n$1@speranza.aioe.org>, porton@narod.ru says...
> 
> Bug report:
> 
> Read all comments to:
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?41737
> 
> One comment there says that I can't login to http://bugs.ghostscript.com
> 
> So I post the report here.

Why ? Don't you think reporting the bug at bugs.ghostscript.com is 
likely to get a better response ? You say you didn't get a confirmation 
email, did you check your spam folder ? It wouldn't be the firsat time 
mail has been misidentified as spam.

You could of course also try again to register.

In addition this is a bug report for gv, not Ghostscript, I have no idea 
what configuration gv is using for Ghostscript, and am certainly not 
going to try and figure it out.

In order for anyone to investigate your problem you should open a bug 
report, provide a *Ghostscript* command line and attach a file to 
demonstarte the problem.

You should also test with the *current* version of Ghostscript (9.10)


		Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1806

In article <MPG.2d7bad0fecd900de9898b2@usenet.plus.net>, ken@spamcop.net 
says...
> 
> In article <ler0gd$l3n$1@speranza.aioe.org>, porton@narod.ru says...
> > 
> > Bug report:
> > 
> > Read all comments to:
> > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?41737
> > 
> > One comment there says that I can't login to http://bugs.ghostscript.com
> > 
> > So I post the report here.

In fact it seems Mr Porton has indeed raised a Ghostscript bug report 
(http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695078) . But the report 
doesn't seem to make much sense. 

He has created a PDF file using Ghostscript which he then prints from 
Adobe Acrobat Reader. Ywo different settings in the Reader print dialog 
apparently give rise to different output on his printer.

Its entirely unclear to me why this is regarded as a *ghostscript* bug 
rather than, say, a bug in Acrobat Reader.....


	Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1807

In article <MPG.2d7bc10ba8671fe49898b3@usenet.plus.net>, ken@spamcop.net 
says...

> In fact it seems Mr Porton has indeed raised a Ghostscript bug report 
> (http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695078) . But the report 
> doesn't seem to make much sense. 
> 
> He has created a PDF file using Ghostscript which he then prints from 
> Adobe Acrobat Reader. Ywo different settings in the Reader print dialog 
> apparently give rise to different output on his printer.
> 
> Its entirely unclear to me why this is regarded as a *ghostscript* bug 
> rather than, say, a bug in Acrobat Reader.....

As a final note; in the original cal.ps I see that the dates are either 
black, gray, outlined or outlined in gray. The gray colour used is 
defined as:

/dategray 0.800 def

which sets the gray for the dates as 20% gray (0 = black, 1 = white) so 
its quite a light gray.

Looking in the resulting PDF file I see that we set 0.800781 g (rounding 
errors internally here) so the PDF file maintains essentially the same 
colour in the same colour space. Eg:

0.800781 g
q
10 0 0 10 0 0 cm BT
/R8 25 Tf
0 1 -1 0 107.75 650 Tm
(1)Tj
-600 -80 Td
(2)Tj
ET
Q
0 g
q
10 0 0 10 0 0 cm BT
/R8 25 Tf
0 1 -1 0 187.75 150 Tm
[(3)-3500(4)-3500(5)-3500(6)-3500(7)]TJ
ET

As you can see this draws the numbers '1' and '2' in 20% gray and the 
numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in 100% gray (black).

This is precisely what I see in the display when viewed in Acrobat. We 
can't be held responsible for what Adobe Acrobat, the printing system, 
and the final printer make of this, but there is no bug in Ghostscript.



			Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1809

ken wrote:

> In article <MPG.2d7bad0fecd900de9898b2@usenet.plus.net>, ken@spamcop.net
> says...
>> 
>> In article <ler0gd$l3n$1@speranza.aioe.org>, porton@narod.ru says...
>> > 
>> > Bug report:
>> > 
>> > Read all comments to:
>> > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?41737
>> > 
>> > One comment there says that I can't login to
>> > http://bugs.ghostscript.com
>> > 
>> > So I post the report here.
> 
> In fact it seems Mr Porton has indeed raised a Ghostscript bug report
> (http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695078) . But the report
> doesn't seem to make much sense.
> 
> He has created a PDF file using Ghostscript which he then prints from
> Adobe Acrobat Reader. Ywo different settings in the Reader print dialog
> apparently give rise to different output on his printer.
> 
> Its entirely unclear to me why this is regarded as a *ghostscript* bug
> rather than, say, a bug in Acrobat Reader.....

See all comments in http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695078

Now I have now repeated the bug with both Acrobat Reader and Okular. So the 
bug is in GhostScript.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1812

In article <lespq7$s25$1@speranza.aioe.org>, porton@narod.ru says...
> See all comments in http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695078
> 
> Now I have now repeated the bug with both Acrobat Reader and Okular. So the 
> bug is in GhostScript.

No. Your problem is in *printing* the PDF file (apparemtly).

The print system may, or may not, include Ghostscript. If it does 
include Ghostscript then you haven't given a command line which will 
reproduce the problem. Until you do we cannot reproduce your problem, 
and until we do that we can neither debug it nor fix it.

As I stated in the other thread, the only direct evidence that 
Ghostscript is in use so far, is the command line which uses ps2pdf and 
that produces a PDF file which is, as far as I can tell, perfectly 
valid, and a sensible version of the input PostScript.

We are not in a position to debug your print system.


		Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1813

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 08:39:39 -0000, ken wrote:

> ... You should also test with the *current* version of Ghostscript (9.10) ...

Would that be the one downloaded with this URL (if for 32-bit Windows)?

<http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/gs910w32.exe>

No Aladdin versions or cs.wisc.edu repository any more? Thanks, ken.

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1814

In article <1wklqoav1hgni.w4iunzzk6dnz$.dlg@40tude.net>, 
mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net says...
 
> Would that be the one downloaded with this URL (if for 32-bit Windows)?
> 
> <http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/gs910w32.exe>

Yes, thats the main one now.

9.something will be released soon (we're probably going to skip 9.11, 
apparently the numbers make people nervous), probably in the next couple 
of weeks.


> No Aladdin versions or cs.wisc.edu repository any more? Thanks, ken.

Wisc (university of Wisconsin) stopped doing hosting last year I think, 
I don't think there's been an aladdin hosting for ages. Basically if you 
want Ghostscript, source or Windows binary, go to ghostscript.com. There 
are Linux binareis there too of course but no AIX, SOlaris, OS/2 etc.



		Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1815

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:59:40 -0000, ken wrote:

> In article <1wklqoav1hgni.w4iunzzk6dnz$.dlg@40tude.net>, 
> mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net says...
>  
>> Would that be the one downloaded with this URL (if for 32-bit Windows)?
>> 
>> <http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/gs910w32.exe>
> 
> Yes, thats the main one now.

Many thanks, ken, for confirming that.
 
> 9.something will be released soon (we're probably going to skip 9.11, 
> apparently the numbers make people nervous), probably in the next couple 
> of weeks.

Ah-hah! Good to know. Thanks again.
 
>> No Aladdin versions or cs.wisc.edu repository any more? Thanks, ken.
> 
> Wisc (university of Wisconsin) stopped doing hosting last year I think, 
> I don't think there's been an aladdin hosting for ages. Basically if you 
> want Ghostscript, source or Windows binary, go to ghostscript.com. There 
> are Linux binareis there too of course but no AIX, SOlaris, OS/2 etc.
 
Heh-heh ... shows how long it's been since last I needed to go find a gs
repository. But Wisc does still seem to host a store of gsview executables. 

> 		Ken

Cheers, Happy Mardi Gras, and thanks again, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1816

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:59:40 AM UTC-6, ken wrote:
> In article <1wklqoav1hgni.w4iunzzk6dnz$.dlg@40tude.net>, 
> 
> mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net says...
> 
> > Would that be the one downloaded with this URL (if for 32-bit Windows)?
> > <http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/gs910w32.exe>
> 
> Yes, thats the main one now.
> 
> 9.something will be released soon (we're probably going to skip 9.11, 
> apparently the numbers make people nervous), probably in the next couple 
> of weeks.
> 
> 
> > No Aladdin versions or cs.wisc.edu repository any more? Thanks, ken.
> 
> Wisc (university of Wisconsin) stopped doing hosting last year I think, 
> I don't think there's been an aladdin hosting for ages. Basically if you 
> want Ghostscript, source or Windows binary, go to ghostscript.com. There 
> are Linux binareis there too of course but no AIX, SOlaris, OS/2 etc.
> 

Will this propagate into the distributions?
Like 'apt-get' or 'yum'?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1817

In article <a306e394-c809-442c-b94a-7678d9c8cde2@googlegroups.com>, 
mijoryx@yahoo.com says...

> Will this propagate into the distributions?
> Like 'apt-get' or 'yum'?

Eventually, yes, though we have no control over that. Ubuntu is usually 
very up to date, other distros vary considerably unfortunately.

	Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.postscript

csiph-web