On 2024-02-28 23:04:41 -0600, Steven Robbins wrote: > On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:54:19 +0100 Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote: > > font1.pdf is the original file (generated by pdflatex). > > font2.pdf is the file obtained with "ps2pdf font1.pdf font2.pdf". > > font.png shows the text of font1.pdf (left) and font2.pdf (right), > > as obtained with xpdf. > > I have repeated the test with ghostscript 10.02.1 and I cannot see any > difference (using xpdf, or using evince) between font1 and the output of > ps2pdf.
Well, with the font*.pdf files I had attached in my bug report, I can no longer see any difference between font1.pdf and font2.pdf with xpdf (or zathura). So I assume that this was actually a bug in xpdf (or poppler), which did something wrong concerning font2.pdf. I've also compared the rendering of these attached files on a Debian 11 machine with xpdf, and I cannot see any difference either. So I suppose that this bug can be closed. Regards, -- 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)
