Debian Context Font problems
Hi Norbert, Here's a simple test case illustrative of the reason why I don't use Debian Context packages 2007.01.23-1 and 2007.01.23-2. \starttext \S1 \blank[big] \S2\crlf\S3 \stoptext In 2007.01.12.2-1 this works fine but in later contexts the section symbols are so tall that those for 2 and 3 overlap. Here's the pdffont output for the PDF generated by 01.12: name type emb sub uni object ID ------------------------------------ ------------ --- --- --- --------- JWRWBM+LMRoman12-Regular Type 1 yes yes yes 7 0 BRHVGD+CMSY10 Type 1 yes yes no 10 0 And here's the pdffont output for the PDF generated by 01.23: name type emb sub uni object ID ------------------------------------ ------------ --- --- --- --------- EXKOFC+LMRoman12-Regular Type 1 yes yes yes 7 0 JRTCBR+LMMathSymbols10-Italic Type 1 yes yes no 10 0 The section symbols look OK once they reach print preview but the mess in the PDF viewer from section symbols and other characters means that I have to keep using 2007.01.12.2-1 for now. My lmodern is 1.00-3 and my pdftex is pdfetex 1.30.5-2.2 from texlive-base-bin 2005.dfsg.2-10. Is this something you can reproduce or something I've messed up in my configuration? Thanks, --Mike Bird
Hi Mike! On Die, 06 Feb 2007, Mike Bird wrote:
\starttext \S1 \blank[big] \S2\crlf\S3 \stoptext
In 2007.01.12.2-1 this works fine but in later contexts the section symbols are so tall that those for 2 and 3 overlap.
Hmm, I cannot confirm this. Please see attached output.png which shows
test.pdf in xpdf, and I don't see an overlap.
I attach also test.log, maybe you find a difference in it.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
Hi Norbert, Thank you for responding so quickly and helpfully. I've appended a diff between your log and mine. There are minor differences in memory usage and yours has "\write18 enabled." and mine does not. I don't know the significance of that. We're also picking up our cont-sys.rme from dfferent places, which seems strange when we're both using Debian packages. I've attached a png showing the bad section symbols. --Mike Bird 1c1 < This is pdfeTeX, Version 3.141592-1.30.5-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.5) (format=cont-en 2007.2.5) 6 FEB 2007 23:41 ---
This is pdfeTeX, Version 3.141592-1.30.5-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.5) (format=cont-en 2007.2.6) 6 FEB 2007 15:15 3d2 < \write18 enabled. 8c7 < ConTeXt ver: 2007.01.23 13:32 MKII fmt: 2007.2.5 int: english/english
ConTeXt ver: 2007.01.23 13:32 MKII fmt: 2007.2.6 int: english/english 25c24 < (/etc/texmf/tex/context/user/cont-sys.rme
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/context/user/cont-sys.rme 65c64 < systems : system commands are enabled
systems : system commands are disabled 100c99 < 20214 string characters out of 550282
20232 string characters out of 550282 103c102 < 75031 words of font info for 37 fonts, out of 500000 for 2000
75031 words of font info for 37 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000
Hi Mike! On Die, 06 Feb 2007, Mike Bird wrote:
Thank you for responding so quickly and helpfully. I've appended a diff between your log and mine. There are minor differences in
This is *really* strange. The only differences are the \write18 and the
cont-sys.rme. I have removed the cont-sys.rme in /etc so that it picks
the one in /u/share/texmf/... and still cannot repeat this problem.
Is the diff you appended the *FULL* diff????
Can you please send me the defective pdf file AND the log file, and make
sure that you are running the current context installation.
Hmm, this I really don't understand.
Ah, one more thing, lets check for the fonts: What are your md5sums of
the fonts? At the end of my document it says:
{/usr/share/texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/lm/lm-mathsy.enc}{/usr/share/texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/lm/lm-ec.enc}
So these are my md5sums, are yours different?
b83544c506921438246ff26625569db9 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/lm/lm-mathsy.enc
001ebb0d6fff5e26f23f883f4a6ae185 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/lm/lmsy10.pfb
80b1519b15bbbdcd055868786959b3bc /usr/share/texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/lm/lm-ec.enc
4905f240aafb4857b3a5389baeaff681 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/lm/lmr12.pfb
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 15:37, Norbert Preining wrote:
This is *really* strange. The only differences are the \write18 and the cont-sys.rme. I have removed the cont-sys.rme in /etc so that it picks the one in /u/share/texmf/... and still cannot repeat this problem.
Is the diff you appended the *FULL* diff????
Yes.
Can you please send me the defective pdf file AND the log file, and make sure that you are running the current context installation.
Please find both attached, and also the test.tex.
b83544c506921438246ff26625569db9 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/lm/lm-mathsy.enc 001ebb0d6fff5e26f23f883f4a6ae185 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/lm/lmsy10.pfb 80b1519b15bbbdcd055868786959b3bc /usr/share/texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/lm/lm-ec.enc 4905f240aafb4857b3a5389baeaff681 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/lm/lmr12.pfb
Same here: b83544c506921438246ff26625569db9 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/lm/lm-mathsy.enc 001ebb0d6fff5e26f23f883f4a6ae185 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/lm/lmsy10.pfb 80b1519b15bbbdcd055868786959b3bc /usr/share/texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/lm/lm-ec.enc 4905f240aafb4857b3a5389baeaff681 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/lm/lmr12.pfb BTW, I'm viewing test.pdf (as I always have) in a Konqueror tab. It looks the same in kpdf. I don't currently have xpdf or acroread installed. --Mike Bird
Hi Norbert, On Tuesday 06 February 2007 16:01, Mike Bird wrote:
BTW, I'm viewing test.pdf (as I always have) in a Konqueror tab. It looks the same in kpdf. I don't currently have xpdf or acroread installed.
I now had xpdf installed. test.pdf looks OK in xpdf, looks bad in xpdf, and neither reports any errors when run from the command prompt. I have no idea where to look now! --Mike Bird
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 16:26, Mike Bird wrote:
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 16:01, Mike Bird wrote:
BTW, I'm viewing test.pdf (as I always have) in a Konqueror tab. It looks the same in kpdf. I don't currently have xpdf or acroread installed.
I now had xpdf installed. test.pdf looks OK in xpdf, looks bad in xpdf,
Correction: looks OK in xpdf, looks bad in kpdf.
and neither reports any errors when run from the command prompt.
I have no idea where to look now!
Correction: looks OK in xpdf, looks bad in kpdf.
Same here: fine in xpdf, bad in kpdf. Also it's fine in gs 8.50. I'm using Ubuntu/i386 with pdftex 1.40 and the Debian context packages (so 2007.01.23). Not sure whether the difference between xpdf and kpdf means that it's a kpdf bug or a bug in the generated pdf itself. I'm leaning toward its' being a problem with kpdf, since "two out of three free viewers prefer" to display it correctly. I just tried it on a nearby Mac OS 10.3 machine with its built-in Preview viewer. Preview complains that it cannot recognize the file format! As a check, I tried a bunch of other ConTeXt-produced documents, including a 100-page math book, and Preview had no problem with them. So now I lean toward the PDF file as the problem, not kpdf. Anyway, why are kpdf and xpdf giving different views? Isn't kpdf based on the xpdf rendering code? -Sanjoy `Not all those who wander are lost.' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Hi all, On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 02:46:06 +0000, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
Correction: looks OK in xpdf, looks bad in kpdf.
Same here: fine in xpdf, bad in kpdf. Also it's fine in gs 8.50. I'm using Ubuntu/i386 with pdftex 1.40 and the Debian context packages (so 2007.01.23).
I'm completely new to context but as far as I tested, changing zoom factor to 100% and/or 200% seems ok (and 125% and 150% looks bad?). Isn't this true for all of you? Regards, 2007-2-7(Wed) -- Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda <kohda AT debian.org> Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
changing zoom factor to 100% and/or 200% seems ok (and 125% and 150% looks bad?).
You're right -- I just tried those zooms here and I see the same: 100%, 200% are okay and 125% and 150% look bad (with overlapping symbols). -Sanjoy `Not all those who wander are lost.' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 18:46, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
I just tried it on a nearby Mac OS 10.3 machine with its built-in Preview viewer. Preview complains that it cannot recognize the file format! As a check, I tried a bunch of other ConTeXt-produced documents, including a 100-page math book, and Preview had no problem with them.
So now I lean toward the PDF file as the problem, not kpdf. Anyway, why are kpdf and xpdf giving different views? Isn't kpdf based on the xpdf rendering code?
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 19:52, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
I'm completely new to context but as far as I tested, changing zoom factor to 100% and/or 200% seems ok (and 125% and 150% looks bad?).
Isn't this true for all of you?
Confirmed. I still don't know what or where the bug is but I think we're narrowing down the possibilities. Thank you all. --Mike Bird
Hi all! On Die, 06 Feb 2007, Mike Bird wrote:
I still don't know what or where the bug is but I think we're narrowing down the possibilities. Thank you all.
One more comment: Acrobat 7 (the full one) does not complain at all,
does not show any strange effects (with all the zoom levels). I couldn't
find any unusual thing in the Document Properties etc.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
participants (4)
-
Atsuhito Kohda -
Mike Bird -
Norbert Preining -
Sanjoy Mahajan