https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23326
--- Comment #17 from Andre Klapper <[email protected]> --- I think there is a misunderstanding here. We are responsible for MediaWiki and this is the canonical, "upstream" bugtracker for MediaWiki, so we of course accept reports and fix bugs for it. So far I have no reason to not believe the output of GhostScript that the specific PDF file is invalid. Again, if you think that GhostScript is wrong, the GhostScript developers need to be contacted "upstream", but I haven't seen any indication that it's a bug in GS so far. We use 3rd party software in many places (like PDF handling) to not reinvent the wheel (the related term is "downstream" - just mentioning the concept here, as I don't know how much open source background you have). > I suggested that perhaps we should use pdfimages (which does work) > instead of ghostscript (which is overly picky). That's worth a separate enhancement request, please file it in this Bugzilla so it can be considered. > But if the file is indeed broken, then Ghostscript should be used > as a validator during upload and refuse to accept this broken file. That's another pretty good idea, and worth another separate request. :) In general only one issue per report should be handled, and this report is about a specific PDF file testcase that does not show a thumbnail, and from all I know so far the reason is that the PDF file is broken, so there's nothing to do server-/software-side (yet) for Wikimedia developers. Hence I closed this as INVALID. This does not mean that things could not be improved in several ways via several involved parties in the long run, but that's out of scope for this specific issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
