Hi Deri, At 2022-11-27T01:41:57+0000, Deri wrote: > I have looked at the SS font now. > > It is not included in devpdf because symbolsl.pfa is not a type 1 > postscript font! It is a postscript program which generates a font > when run by a postscript interpreter. The gropdf man page does say you > can only use it with type 1 fonts. If you view the file you will see > it is significantly different from other pfa files on your system.
Well, not _blatantly_... $ head -n 1 /usr/share/a2ps/fonts/pcfont.pfa %!PS-AdobeFont-1.0 -*- PostScript -*- $ head -n 1 ./build/font/devps/symbolsl.pfa %!PS-Adobe-3.0 Resource-Font So I looked at a PFB file, too. $ head -n 1 /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/n022023l.pfb | od -c 0000000 200 001 035 005 \0 \0 % ! P S - A d o b e 0000020 F o n t - 1 . 0 : N i m b u s 0000040 M o n L - R e g u O b l i 1 . 0000060 0 6 \n 0000063 $ file /usr/share/a2ps/fonts/pcfont.pfa /usr/share/a2ps/fonts/pcfont.pfa: PostScript Type 1 font text (-*- PostScript -*-) $ file ./build/font/devps/symbolsl.pfa ./build/font/devps/symbolsl.pfa: PostScript Type 1 font text $ file /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/n022023l.pfb /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/n022023l.pfb: PostScript Type 1 font program data I don't think we should shell out from gropdf to run the file(1) command anyway, but... Is "%!PS-AdobeFont-" a reliable indicator of acceptability to gropdf? > I don't think it is unreasonable for gropdf to barf over its contents, > and viewers to barf as well. I agree. If we can make gropdf barf on invalid input, we don't subject the PDF viewer to the indignity of playing centipede.[1] > A reasonable error message when consuming a non type 1 file would be > desirable. :-) Yes. Happy to code one up and run it by you on this list if you can verify my surmise above, or offer a substitute. Regards, Branden [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centipede_(video_game) [2] [2] (Why, what did you _think_ I meant?)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
