Using the attached font (yes, libre licences) in a document
then either exporting that to PDF or printing it to a file
results in output that cannot directly be printed.

To add insult to injury, as the font is both subset and
embedded (knobs to disable either, separately, would be
VERY welcome), I cannot even use Ghostscript to add the
OS’ copy of the font with e.g. ps2pdf.

The problem here seems to be that the font is subset as
a stream that neither my girlfriend’s printer nor
GhostScript understand: the printer just drops it, and:

$ gs -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH '-sDEVICE=pdfwrite' '-sOutputFile=/tmp/x.pdf' -dSAFER '-dSubsetFonts=true' '-dEmbedAllFonts=true' '-dCompatibilityLevel=1.4' -f bla.pdf
[…]
   **** Error: can't process embedded font stream,
        attempting to load the font using its name.
               Output may be incorrect.
[…]

The embedded font name is: BAAAAA+Inconsolatazi4[varl,varqu]Regular

I think something goes wrong with at least the name.
The font name is actually: Inconsolatazi4varl_qu

Its “human display name” is: Inconsolata zi4[varl,varqu] Regular

However, LibreOffice uses *that* instead of the proper psname
as base for the embedded font name, and at *least* that seems
to choke consumers of the resulting PDF.

And, yeah, output is incorrect — the ps2pdf output drops the
glyphs from the font.

$ pdffonts bla.pdf
name                                 type              encoding         emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
BAAAAA+Inconsolatazi4[varl,varqu]Regular Type 1            Builtin          yes yes yes      9  0


Other applications, such as Mu͒seScore, can use that font just fine,
although it does not subset it.


Oh, and I noticed #965236 is also still open, meaning PDF files
generated by LibreOffice aren’t legal to distribute…

tag 1036366 + moreinfo

thanks

Hi,

Am 20.05.23 um 01:57 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:

You as DD should know that stable won't get any updates for this
anymore. (And it will be oldstable in a short time anyway, even.)

So reporting this against stable does not make any sense at all.

Please try with bookworms package (that one has stable backports, but is
end-of-life upstream soonish[1])  - or even better: something more
uptodate getting upstream development: experimentals 7.5 (which also is
in "important bugfixes" mode only now, though[1]) - or even 7.6.0
alpha1[1][2].

I think I saw commits for font subsetting passing by when I checked the
commit log for other things..)


(And I still think such bugs should be reported upstream directly)

Regards,


Rene


Oh, and I noticed #965236 is also still open, meaning PDF files

Similiar for that one ;)


Regards,


Rene


[1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/7.4 and
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/7.5 and
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/7.6

[2] http://people.debian.org/~rene/libreoffice/7.6/releases and/or
http://people.debian.org/~rene/libreoffice/7.6/snapshots

Rene Engelhard dixit:

So, who cares?
the maintainers (both in Debian and upstream) to do something about
it at least in future versions.

Please do so. You’re in a much better position than I am, I don’t
even have a bookworm/sid system and don’t plan on getting one either.

And I still counter that you are in a much better position than me to
do so. I don’t have the bandwidth to do that, I already lost over an
hour fighting this (I ended up having to hack the font, renaming it in
FontForge), and every day I don’t need to touch an office program is a
better day. I don’t have accounts in upstreams’ bugtrackers, I cannot
respond to the questions they will surely have and I cannot test their
proposed fixes either. While I’m a DD, that does not mean I suddenly am
a developer of *everything* (I have enough with the things I actually
volunteered for), and as a package maintainer, it’s your responsibility
to gate between the users (which, in this case, I am one) and upstream.

Hmm, I wonder if the LO origtgz contains PDFs generated by LO and
if that’s grounds to file a request for removal…

Please let’s not go to petty infighting like this. I help out people
with shell, C, assembly, weird porting questions, but here’s where
you can help out with GUI things. I’d rather work in favour of a
better world, but to do that everyone has to help.

bye,
//mirabilos

Hi,

Am 20.05.23 um 23:52 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
me :)
True

No, upstream doesn't do it when it just appears here. And I could
forward it, but how does  that help?

I don't have enough info and no time to play proxy for every question.

I don't even understand the problem. So you as the submitter is better
suited to do this.

I disagree. You know best what's the problem and what not :)

I don't use it either...
respond to the questions they will surely have and I cannot test their
proposed fixes either.

Exactly the same for a "simple" maintainer of the package without knowing the exact problem...

Regards,


Rene

Dear submitter,

as the package libreoffice has just been removed from the Debian archive
experimental we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/1069123

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using https://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Humanitarian Grant of 1.5M for you. Reply for claims