On 2021-10-01 16:52:13 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Vincent Lefevre (2021-10-01 15:53:38) > > It seems that the issue partly comes from pdflatex: On an old file for > > which ps2pdf was correct with ghostscript 9.53.3~dfsg-4, it is now > > incorrect still with ghostscript 9.53.3~dfsg-4. But if I regenerate > > the intermediate PDF file on an old Debian machine and transfer it to > > my current machine, ps2pdf is correct with ghostscript 9.53.3~dfsg-4 > > and with ghostscript 9.53.3~dfsg-7 (stable), and also with ghostscript > > 9.54.0~dfsg-5. > > Are you sure you mean 9.53.3~dfsg-7, not 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1?
Yes, I used "apt .../stable", and it was 9.53.3~dfsg-7 that was fetched, not the security update. zira:~> apt-show-versions -a ghostscript ghostscript:amd64 9.54.0~dfsg-5 install ok installed ghostscript:amd64 9.53.3~dfsg-7 stable ftp.debian.org ghostscript:amd64 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1 stable-security security.debian.org No stable-updates version ghostscript:amd64 9.54.0~dfsg-5 testing ftp.debian.org ghostscript:amd64 9.54.0~dfsg-5 unstable ftp.debian.org ghostscript:amd64 9.55.0~~rc1~dfsg-1 experimental ftp.debian.org ghostscript:amd64/testing 9.54.0~dfsg-5 uptodate Perhaps I should have used "/stable-security". > Some upstream changes was backported for -7 and other changes was > introduced by -7+deb11u1: > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/g/ghostscript/changelog-9.53.3dfsg-7deb11u1 > > Possibly related to the recent changes to Ghostscripts SAFER: > https://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.55.0/Use.htm#Safer > > Perhaps recent pdflatex was adapted to handle the change to SAFER, and > in doing so became dependent on recent Ghostscript (and perhaps that was > then not reflected in packaging of pdflatex)? Anyway, I doubt that this is related to the font / mapping issue. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
