Hi Pino, > As I'm currently writing, the patch has been considered a good > starting point but it is not complete yet, nor it has been ACKed.
Agreed. But the whole point is that it is a *regression* because in older versions of poppler it did work. So there should be code or a way to find what caused the problem. > I will wait when there's at least a complete fix upstream, otherwise > it is piling up hacks on hacks. But I am not sure whether it will be included. The devs stated in https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73291 that the *font* should be fixed, which means they are not acknowledging that the problem is within the proper interpretation for glyph names in poppler. OTOH, the font developers have a clear stand and try to be according to the guidelines put forth by Adobe. > >Poppler upstream maintainers seem to be ignorant about this, and > >even worse, seem to be completely incooperative. > > Pointers to this? In both the freedesktop bugs (#73291 and #80093), See the abov bug report where in comment 19 Christopher Yeleighton states that it is a bug in the fonts. Maybe he is not a developer, but by now I haven't seen any clear statement in *either* of the bugs that the developers consider this a regression. As a side note: If you follow https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25240 then you will see what the attitude of (at least one) poppler developer is concerning bugs including patches. Honestly, this does *not* give me a good feeling about ideal cooperation. I asked in that bug report for arguments, never an answer, nobody got an answer. This is the interaction I don't want to have. > Sure, poppler has bugs and sometimes regressions, like in this case, > but reacting with such anger (especially when none of the right > poppler people, upstream or also in Debian (which would be me) is > contacted) is not productive. I did not contact you but upstream, this is where the original bug was filed. > Moreover, few months ago I contacted you about testing poppler the > 0.25.x pre-releases of 0.26 and other details, and never got anything I know, I was busy packaging 2014, and maybe you don't know through which library hell I had to go due to libpng maintainers keeping libpng >= 1.5 out of Debian. I have spent weeks trying to fix these problems - I honestly cannot invest more time just to test compatibilities. And why did I not contact you - because it is not a Debian bug, but an upstream bug. And with the above email I suggested to include a fix since my feeling from the two freedesktop bugs is that poppler will not fix this regression. Anyway, it was never considered a remark on *your* work packaging poppler in Debian, just a suggestion to include a patch to make poppler again standard compliant (in some sense). Norbert ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
