On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 09:30:05 -0400, Celejar wrote: > [Responding to my own message. I had neglected to restart X after > installing ttf-liberation. The problem seems to be fixed after doing > so.] > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:41:48 -0400 Celejar wrote:
[...] > Now, with liberation added and X restarted, I get this: > > name type emb sub uni object ID > ------------------------------------ ----------------- --- --- --- --------- > DEDVIP+f-0-0 TrueType yes yes yes 9 0 > LRSXWR+f-3-0 TrueType yes yes yes 17 0 > VKJNGT+f-4-0 TrueType yes yes yes 20 0 > WQHWKD+f-2-0 TrueType yes yes yes 15 0 > PGUGBG+f-1-0 TrueType yes yes yes 13 0 > MFZMRR+f-5-0 TrueType yes yes yes 31 0 > GMTXSU+f-7-0 Type 1C yes yes yes 35 0 > RXRETH+f-6-0 Type 1C yes yes yes 33 0 > [none] Type 3 yes no yes 44 0 > [none] Type 3 yes no yes 40 0 > [none] Type 3 yes no yes 57 0 > > I have two fewer no-name fonts, but my named ones still have > meaningless names, not the nice ones you get. I also still have eleven > fonts reported, to your seven. Do you know what this is all about? [I > tried replacing xpdf-utils with poppler-utils, to get your pdffonts, > but the output is identical.] [...] > The Debian page, as well as other pages which had not been displaying > properly, now seem to be printing correctly. I am happy to hear that. > Thanks very much for your help. Don't mention it; this is a nice opportunity to learn more about font management. > I am still baffled, though, by several > things: > > a) Should printing really be so crippled on Debian, with its emphasis > on freedom, if the MS fonts, or at least the liberation drop-ins, > aren't installed? The only package which depends on liberation is the > openoffice meta-package, which I don't have installed, although I do > have writer. Should I file a bug? Against what? And am I really the > first one to be bitten by this? You seem to be very selective when installing packages. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but I would suspect that many users of "desktop" (as opposed to "server") machines just go for the metapackages and they are maybe also more liberal in installing "recommends" and "suggests". That could explain why the majority of users is less likely to run into this kind of problem. I now found a related bug (#489165) filed as "wishlist" against fontconfig-config. I think it would be good if you added a brief description of your problem to that bug report to give it more weight. > b) I don't seem to have seen this problem until fairly recently (I > believe within the last few months). I don't think I even had the MS > fonts or the liberation drop-ins installed. Many packages could be relevant for this problem (ghostscript, cairo, freetype, poppler, gtk, ...), so it will probably be difficult to find out which specific upgrade broke your configuration. > c) Why is my pdffonts output so much uglier and less informative than > yours? I have the impression that the "nice" names show up for fonts that are widely used and whose names are accepted as standard. For other PDFs I see font names that are similar to your "ulgy" ones, e.g. LNFWNR+CMR10 (a "Computer Modern" font of Latex), CESJKL+FreeSans, or something like FCGNJC+AdvP4C4E74. If you want to run pdffonts yourself on the PDF that I printed from www.debian.org then you can download it here: http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer/celejar/www-debian-org.pdf However, I don't recall ever seeing these "DEDVIP+f-0-0" kinds of names before. Maybe you are still missing some other relatively important font-related package. Here is list of the ones that I have installed: http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer/celejar/font-related-packages.txt -- Regards, | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
