Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 18:05 26/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: Just to be absolutely certain; the lack of PDFDontUseFontObjectNum is no longer a showstopper for you ? We do not need PDFDontUseFontObjectNum any longer. It's removal is not a showstopper. Thanks for the confirmation! We've run across a

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Am 26.09.2017 um 14:13 schrieb Ken Sharp: At 11:24 25/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: Thanks to the ghostscript community for your great tool and your patience! Just to be absolutely certain; the lack of PDFDontUseFontObjectNum is no longer a showstopper for you ? We do not  need

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 11:24 25/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: Thanks to the ghostscript community for your great tool and your patience! Just to be absolutely certain; the lack of PDFDontUseFontObjectNum is no longer a showstopper for you ? We're planning to do a second release candidate 'real soon now'

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Am 25.09.2017 um 10:41 schrieb David Kastrup: The good news: The winning solution (96MB) * is possible without PDFDontUseFontObjectNum * is possible with HEAD of git master of ghostscript. What's the tree size for "make doc"? How does it deal with older versions of Ghostscript? At any

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Knut Petersen writes: >>> If other people agree that my >> patch solves the problem >> of exorbitant file sizes, we might live well without ghostscripts >> PDFDontUseFontObjectNum. >> >> I'm not really clear on how this works,

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

If other people agree that my patch solves the problem of exorbitant file sizes, we might live well without ghostscripts PDFDontUseFontObjectNum. I'm not really clear on how this works, I'm curious as to where the final embedded fonts are inserted.

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 19:12 23/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: For a recent ghostscript without the PDFDontUseFontObjectNum only the combination of lilyponds --bigpdfs with -dgs-never-embed-fonts gives the desired result. The necessity for the extractpdfmark utility has not changed - use it if you link to

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Hi everybody! The removal of the PDFDontUseFontObjectNum option in ghostscript caused a lot of headache during the last days. Lilypond provides since early 2015 a way to persuade ghostscript to remove duplicated fonts from pdfs. Later the extractpdfmark program was introduced to allow links

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Dear Hosoda-san, Thank you for posting very detailed package to reproduce the issue, it was far detailed than I expected. Please let me spend some time to check it, due to I'm absent from my office in next week... Regards, mpsuzuki Masamichi Hosoda wrote: >> In my impression, if >> >> $ gs

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

> Note that I didn't attempt this on 9.21, just the 9.22 release > candidate. While the fonts are properly dropped from the individual > PDF files, none of the text was visible in the final PDF file, when > rebuilding with Emmentaler supplied as an external font in fontmap.GS. > > Its interesting

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 02:35 23/09/2017 +0900, Masamichi Hosoda wrote: > Converting to TeX format would probably work, but apparently there > were problems with that. > > Is there some other approach available ? There is a method of using font non-embedded PDF. In my experiment, it seems to work fine except

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

This discussion concerns two mailing lists, some mails exist in both archives, but other mail seems to exist only in one archive. For convenience of people subscribing to only one mailing list, both mailing list archive URLs are as follows.

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

> In my impression, if > > $ gs -dSAFER -dEPSCrop -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH > -r1200 > -dSubsetFonts=false -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -dAutoRotatePages=/None > -sOutputFile=filename.pdf -c.setpdfwrite -ffilename.eps > > does not embed the completed font into PDF, Ghostscript developers >

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

>>If there is a full font embedded (non-subset) PDF, >>does the bigpdfs trick work effectively? > > Its still, in my opinion, a risky thing to do. However, if the font > were fully embedded, you wouldn't need to use Ghostscript and the > PDFDontUseFontObjectNum bug approach (which is the risky

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 10:12 22/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: Well, if we could delay the embedding, I'd not be particularly sad: "make doc" currently(?) eats up more than 3Gb which is sort of ridiculous. The intermediate PDFs for lilypond-book are arranged in some "database" and not really externalized,

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 10:23 22/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: If it's a conceivable part of a good longterm strategy: I think our fonts are generated via Fontforge starting with a METAFONT (or METAPOST?) font description, so it's conceivable that if other font formats would generally be better supported by

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Ken Sharp writes: > At 00:41 22/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > >> > Or, even so, should we take other methods (e.g. using non-embedded PDFs)? >> >>If we figure out a working alternative, we should take it. The current >>set of Ghostscript bugs in 9.22 is still a

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Ken Sharp writes: > At 07:01 22/09/2017 +0900, Masamichi Hosoda wrote: > >>If there is a full font embedded (non-subset) PDF, >>does the bigpdfs trick work effectively? > > Its still, in my opinion, a risky thing to do. However, if the font > were fully embedded, you

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 00:41 22/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Or, even so, should we take other methods (e.g. using non-embedded PDFs)? If we figure out a working alternative, we should take it. The current set of Ghostscript bugs in 9.22 is still a bit in flux, so it's not clear yet which alternative

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 07:01 22/09/2017 +0900, Masamichi Hosoda wrote: If there is a full font embedded (non-subset) PDF, does the bigpdfs trick work effectively? Its still, in my opinion, a risky thing to do. However, if the font were fully embedded, you wouldn't need to use Ghostscript and the

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Masamichi Hosoda writes: >>>We use the following command to convert from EPS to PDF. >>> >>>$ gs -dSAFER -dEPSCrop -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH >>>-r1200 -dSubsetFonts=false -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -dAutoRotatePages=/None >>>-sOutputFile=filename.pdf -c.setpdfwrite

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

>>We use the following command to convert from EPS to PDF. >> >>$ gs -dSAFER -dEPSCrop -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH >>-r1200 -dSubsetFonts=false -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -dAutoRotatePages=/None >>-sOutputFile=filename.pdf -c.setpdfwrite -ffilename.eps >> >>We believed that Ghostscript

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 21:43 21/09/2017 +0900, Masamichi Hosoda wrote: We use the following command to convert from EPS to PDF. $ gs -dSAFER -dEPSCrop -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -r1200 -dSubsetFonts=false -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -dAutoRotatePages=/None -sOutputFile=filename.pdf -c.setpdfwrite

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 14:43 21/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: The fonts in the pdfs are identical fonts constructed by ghostscript on the fly, I think it was Ken Sharp who explained to me some years ago that the term "subset" is wrong ;-) Well, sort of, they aren't identical though, they are all

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Well, it occurs to me that the *real* problem here is that the fonts in the individual PDF files are subsets. If they were not, then I believe you could safely and easily use MuPDF (specifically mutool clean) to remove the duplicate fonts. Or at least, the duplicate FontFile streams, I'm not

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

> So the question then becomes 'why are the fonts subset ?' That's a > really good question, and the answer is that I don't know. Its > possible that there is a genuine pdfwrite bug here. The piece of > information I'm missing is the step used to create the PDF files from > the EPS files, I don't

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 18:50 20/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: Did you get to see the PostScript files before conversion with pstopdf? Would being able to generate those differently make a difference? I'm pretty sure Knut sent me everything, really everything. Not that I can use it all, but its nice to

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Ken Sharp writes: > At 14:57 20/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: > >>I sent a collection of files to Ken. > > Well, my idea doesn't work with your font, because (I think) its an > OTF font. I had hoped it would be possible to create the PDF files > with *no* fonts

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 14:57 20/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: I sent a collection of files to Ken. Well, my idea doesn't work with your font, because (I think) its an OTF font. I had hoped it would be possible to create the PDF files with *no* fonts embedded at all, then have Ghostscript embed them just

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Knut Petersen writes: > Am 20.09.2017 um 09:50 schrieb Ken Sharp: >> If someone can create a couple of PostScript files, ideally genuine >> examples of the files you would use for your manual, created as you >> would create them for the manual (ie with the bigpdf

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Am 20.09.2017 um 09:50 schrieb Ken Sharp: If someone can create a couple of PostScript files, ideally genuine examples of the files you would use for your manual, created as you would create them for the manual (ie with the bigpdf switch) then I can experiment a bit. I don't need any PDF files,

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

> I'm surprised you find it necessary to have different fonts for > different point sizes though. For full scores, this is *extremely* important. Today, music publishers no longer typeset pocket scores (approx. in A5 format) separately in most cases, mainly to save money. Instead, they simply

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 22:30 19/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: What happens if you include several "final" pdfs in a *TeX document? If you include several pdfs generated as described above in a *TeX-generated pdf, all fonts from the lilypond pdfs are included. Probably all are different. If you feed

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

On 9/19/2017 11:25 AM, Ken Sharp wrote: > not disabling subsetting when creating the PDF files would make some > savings, probably quite signifcant, but I can't tell without seeing > some examples of the PDF files in question. If it helps, here are some example PDF files. I believe this

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Hi everybody! So you aren't gaining any benefit from exploiting the Ghostscript bug with the Lilypond output. But we are. I hope that Masamichi-san (or Kurt?) can provide the details here in order to give you a better picture. * *Some technical details about our usage of the bug/feature we

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

>>There are already libraries that can read PDFs into a data structure >>and then write a new PDF [...] > > Indeed, and if I was going to do this I would use MuPDF. [...] Thanks for your suggestions. However, these are long-time solutions, which need capable persons for an implementation (and

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 17:35 19/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: TeX is designed for the problem of creating documents and all current TeX engines offer ways of including externally created inclusions in a graphic format. And Ghostscript, far from being a general purpose program, is designed for executing

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Ken Sharp writes: > At 15:44 19/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > >>Are there any example documents with thousands of pages and ten >>thousands of PDF inclusions one could look at? > > I would suggest that the fact you want to 'include' tens of thousands > of PDF

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 15:11 19/09/2017 +, William Bader wrote: >It would be possible to write a tool which could reliably detect identical fonts in a PDF file, There are already libraries that can read PDFs into a data structure and then write a new PDF, for example, pdfsizeopt in python, poppler

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

a font merging tool. From: Ken Sharp <ken.sh...@artifex.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:03 AM To: David Kastrup Cc: William Bader; gs-de...@ghostscript.com; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1 At

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 16:29 19/09/2017 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: This is next to impossible. lilypond has knowledge for good music typography, while TeX has knowledge for good text typography. I read your suggestion that lilypond should do everything, i.e., both text and music layout, but this won't happen,

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

> In general, however, my experience of working with large documents > is that the content should be maintained in the layout application > native format until the last moment. Broadly speaking this is > similar to keeping bitmap data in something like TIFF and only > converting to JPEG at the

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 15:44 19/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: Are there any example documents with thousands of pages and ten thousands of PDF inclusions one could look at? I would suggest that the fact you want to 'include' tens of thousands of PDF files to be the problem, really. I appreciate you are

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

William Bader writes: >>Then maybe you should complain to the software producing that content. > > That is one place where TeX shows its age, and switching to a newer > system like SILE might produce better output > https://github.com/simoncozens/sile >

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Ken Sharp writes: > At 13:42 19/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > >>So the mechanisms mostly out of our own control are Ghostscript in its >>ps2pdf facility, various TeX engines when including lots of >>ps2pdf-generated PDF files into a main document. > > To me this is

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 13:42 19/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: So the mechanisms mostly out of our own control are Ghostscript in its ps2pdf facility, various TeX engines when including lots of ps2pdf-generated PDF files into a main document. To me this is where the problem lies, PDF is good as a terminal

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

iam From: gs-devel <gs-devel-boun...@ghostscript.com> on behalf of Ken Sharp <ken.sh...@artifex.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:38 AM To: David Kastrup Cc: gs-de...@ghostscript.com; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Rele

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Ken Sharp writes: > At 11:33 19/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > >>The question is what the complaint should be, namely what LilyPond does >>wrong. Producing large comprehensive manuals using TeX including lots >>of example images generated using the same fonts? > >

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 11:33 19/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: The question is what the complaint should be, namely what LilyPond does wrong. Producing large comprehensive manuals using TeX including lots of example images generated using the same fonts? Ah, you need to be careful talking about 'images'

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 20:38 18/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > And if you have multiple subsets, badly named (eg OpenOffice output) > then you get a final PDF file where some of the text is missing or > garbled. So? Nobody forces anybody to use that option. The point is rather that if you don't use the

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Ken Sharp writes: > At 20:38 18/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > >>I think "slightly smaller" was something like a factor of 10. We are >>talking about files including literally thousands if not ten thousands >>of graphics (manuals close to a thousand pages with

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 07:48 19/09/2017 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote: I understand why the default behavior of ghostscript changed. But could anyone who advocates to remove the PDFDontUseFontObjectNum be so kind to give a clear explanation why keeping it would be a bad idea? We have, literally, hundreds of

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 17:27 18/09/2017 -0700, Perry Hutchison wrote: Masamichi Hosoda wrote: > >>It seems that `-dPDFDontUseFontObjectNum` option does not work. ... > There is a tool for using this method of removing duplicate fonts. > https://www.ctan.org/pkg/extractpdfmark >

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 20:38 18/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: I think "slightly smaller" was something like a factor of 10. We are talking about files including literally thousands if not ten thousands of graphics (manuals close to a thousand pages with lots of graphic output included). Then maybe you

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Am 19.09.2017 um 04:12 schrieb William Bader: pdfsizeopt is another pdf compression tool that can eliminate duplicate fonts and can sometimes merge subset fonts. https://github.com/pts/pdfsizeopt/blob/master/lib/pdfsizeopt/main.py I checked pdfsizeopt more than once. Unfortunately it never

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Perry Hutchison <per...@pluto.rain.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 8:27 PM To: truer...@trueroad.jp Cc: gs-de...@ghostscript.com; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1 Masamichi Hosoda <truer...@trueroad.jp> wr

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

>>> LilyPond has option `--bigpdfs` for unifying duplicate fonts in >>> this method. >> >> And your point is what ? That's not what the pdfwrite device is >> intended for, and we don't claim you can use it to do that. >> >> As I said, if you think its that useful, then you can add the >> switch

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Am 18.09.2017 um 20:20 schrieb Ken Sharp: LilyPond has option `--bigpdfs` for unifying duplicate fonts in this method. And your point is what ? That's not what the pdfwrite device is intended for, and we don't claim you can use it to do that. As I said, if you think its that useful, then you

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

per...@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison) writes: > Masamichi Hosoda wrote: > >> >>It seems that `-dPDFDontUseFontObjectNum` option does not work. > ... >> There is a tool for using this method of removing duplicate fonts. >> https://www.ctan.org/pkg/extractpdfmark >>

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Am 19.09.2017 um 02:27 schrieb Perry Hutchison: There is a tool for using this method of removing duplicate fonts. https://www.ctan.org/pkg/extractpdfmark https://packages.debian.org/stretch/extractpdfmark http://packages.ubuntu.com/zesty/extractpdfmark As I see it, the availability of a

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 00:31 19/09/2017 +0900, Masamichi Hosoda wrote: When you create a PDF document using something like a TeX system you may include many small PDF files in the main PDF file. It is common for each of the small PDF files to use the same fonts. If the small PDF files contain embedded full font

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Masamichi Hosoda wrote: > >>It seems that `-dPDFDontUseFontObjectNum` option does not work. ... > There is a tool for using this method of removing duplicate fonts. > https://www.ctan.org/pkg/extractpdfmark > https://packages.debian.org/stretch/extractpdfmark >

Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

Ken Sharp writes: > At 00:31 19/09/2017 +0900, Masamichi Hosoda wrote: > >>When you create a PDF document using something like a TeX system >>you may include many small PDF files in the main PDF file. >>It is common for each of the small PDF files to use the same fonts. >>

Re: [gs-devel] Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

>> > Please give them a try on your system if you're interested in helping >> > test the release-in-progress. Your feedback is appreciated. >> >>It seems that `-dPDFDontUseFontObjectNum` option does not work. > > It has been removed, as documented in History9.htm: > > 2017-08-02 13:41:59 +0100 >