Your message dated Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:44:38 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: your mail
has caused the Debian Bug report #518798,
regarding fop: no longer embeds additional fonts
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
518798: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=518798
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: fop
Version: 1:0.95.dfsg-4
Severity: important
I have the PalatinoLinotype font available on my system[0]. With the
configuration file that I have attached, fop 0.94 would automatically
find and use that font, since it was specified in the FO. With fop
0.95, not only is the font not embedded, it isn't even referenced in the
PDF, and instead of text, I get lots and lots of # signs.
Creating FO that refers to Times instead of PalatinoLinotype solves this
problem. Using explicit metrics sizes in the fop configuration file
(such as the ones that are commented out in the attached file) has no
effect whatsoever. As far as I can tell, fop is completely unusable
with fonts other than the base 14.
I've attached a FO source file and the corresponding PDF as well as the
configuration file; if you need me to do other tests, I'm happy to do
so. All the files are bzip2'd so as to be more gentle on the mail
servers.
[0] In /usr/local/share/fonts .
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.29-rc7-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages fop depends on:
ii default-jre [java2-runtim 1.5-31 Standard Java or Java compatible R
ii java-gcj-compat [java2-ru 1.0.80-1 Java runtime environment using GIJ
ii java-wrappers 0.1.13 wrappers for java executables
ii libavalon-framework-java 4.2.0-4 Common framework for Java server a
ii libbatik-java 1.7-2 xml.apache.org SVG Library
ii libbsf-java 1:2.4.0-2 Bean Scripting Framework to suppor
ii libcommons-io-java 1.4-1 Common useful IO related classes
ii libcommons-logging-java 1.1.1-2 commmon wrapper interface for seve
ii libxalan2-java 2.7.1-2 XSL Transformations (XSLT) process
ii libxerces2-java 2.9.1-2 Validating XML parser for Java wit
ii libxml-commons-external-j 1.3.04-2 XML Commons external code - DOM, S
ii libxmlgraphics-commons-ja 1.3.1.dfsg-2 reusable components used by Batik
ii libxp6 1:1.0.0.xsf1-2 X Printing Extension (Xprint) clie
ii libxt6 1:1.0.5-3 X11 toolkit intrinsics library
ii libxtst6 2:1.0.3-1 X11 Testing -- Resource extension
ii openjdk-6-jre [java2-runt 6b14-1~exp1 OpenJDK Java runtime, using Hotspo
Versions of packages fop recommends:
ii libsaxon-java 1:6.5.5-5 The Saxon XSLT Processor
Versions of packages fop suggests:
ii fop-doc 1:0.95.dfsg-4 Documentation for fop
ii libservlet2.4-java 5.0.30-8 Servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 Java class
-- no debconf information
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
troff on top of XML: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
crypto-primer.fo.bz2
Description: Binary data
crypto-primer.pdf.bz2
Description: Binary data
fop.xconf.bz2
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 09:29:41AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> BTW did you know since fop 0.95 that all this mess is not required anymore.
> See for instance:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg11702.html
Yes, I did. In fact, that's what the problem is. From the fop.xconf
file that I attached to the bug report:
<directory recursive="true">/usr/local/share/fonts/</directory>
<directory recursive="true">/usr/share/fonts/</directory>
<auto-detect />
fop doesn't actually do that automatically anymore. It did in 0.94, but
it doesn't in 0.95. If I edit the fop.xconf file to remove the
metrics, it generates a whole bunch of hash marks, as I previously
stated.
Okay, now that I've looked at it, it seems that it only accepts the
family-name value, not the one in font-name. If I use the family-name
value, it works correctly. I'm going to close the bug, but it should
probably be documented that the correct value to use is not the
PostScript name (PalatinoLinotype) but the full name (Palatino
Linotype). I'm pretty sure fop used to handle the former gracefully,
although it doesn't now.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please
use
[email protected] for discussions and questions.
