Looking at the ps file created by dvips, it seems that in the case of
the previous version of texlive (2007), dvips includes only one font:
$ grep FontDir hello2007.ps
FontDirectory/CMR10 known{/CMR10 findfont dup/UniqueID known{dup
while dvips from texlive 2009 includes two copies:
$ grep FontDir hello2009.ps
FontDirectory/CMR10 known{/CMR10 findfont dup/UniqueID known{dup
FontDirectory/CMR10 known{/CMR10 findfont dup/UniqueID known{dup
Note that using dvips from texlive 2007 with a dvi from texlive 2009
doesn't result in this problem:
$ grep FontDir hello2009-2007.ps
FontDirectory/CMR10 known{/CMR10 findfont dup/UniqueID known{dup
In the cases where there are two copies of the font embedded in the PS
file, PS viewers and the pdfs made from the PS file fail to display the
text as described.
Editing the postscript generated by dvips to rename the font that's not
from the EPS file also solves this problem giving a usable PS file:
$ sed '0,/hello.eps/{s/cmr10/&a/ig}' hello2009.ps > hello2009b.ps
It would thus seem that the problem is caused by a change in the
behaviour of dvips and that this new behaviour is generating postscript
with incorrectly mapped fonts.
Reassign to texlive-binaries as it owns dvips. Realistically, this is
probably something that needs to be worked through with the dvips
developers, however.
** Package changed: pyx (Ubuntu) => texlive-bin (Ubuntu)
--
wrong texts in eps file made with PYX
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578786
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
