[tex-live] dvips from texlive2012 messes up with postscript figure

George N. White III gnwiii at gmail.com
Tue Nov 20 16:59:47 CET 2012

I found the old message from Karl  (Sept., 2011):

[tex-live] dvipsDownloadBase35 now true by default

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:02 PM, George N. White III <gnwiii at gmail.com>wrote:

> I can reproduce the problem using both evince and okular viewers with a PS
> file created using dvips from TL2012 on Ubuntu 12.04 (x86_64).  The figure
> looks correct in a PS file created using the distro texlive 2009 package.
> It could be significant that the problem files are much larger due to the
> inclusion of URW fonts.   This raises the possibility that the two files
> are being rendered using different versions of the URW fonts (e.g., the
> "system" versions from the linux distro and the TL version).
> I recall some discussion of whether the URW fonts should be embedded in
> dvips output to help
> ensure that the versions used to create the PS file were the same as those
> used to view the file.
> Since the figure does not include the fonts, the TL2012 version may be
> getting fonts different from those used to create the figure.  The
> discussion in Paul Murrell and Brian Ripley (2006) Non-standard fonts in
> PostScript and PDF graphics. *R News*, 6(2):41–47.
> http://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2006-2.pdf might be relevant.
> $ ls -l example-*.ps
>  52 -rw-r--r-- 1 gwhite bod  51789 Nov 19 20:06 example-texlive2011.ps
> 164 -rw-r--r-- 1 gwhite bod 166255 Nov 19 20:06 example-texlive2012.ps
> $ grep BeginFont example-*.ps
> example-texlive2011.ps:%%BeginFont: txtt
> example-texlive2011.ps:%%BeginFont: rtxmi
> example-texlive2011.ps:%%BeginFont: txsy
> example-texlive2011.ps:%%BeginFont: rtxsc
> example-texlive2011.ps:%%BeginFont: rtxr
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: NimbusRomNo9L-Medi
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: txtt
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: NimbusRomNo9L-Regu
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: NimbusRomNo9L-ReguItal
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: rtxmi
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: NimbusSanL-Regu
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: NimbusSanL-Bold
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: txsy
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: NimbusRomNo9L-MediItal
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: rtxsc
> example-texlive2012.ps:%%BeginFont: rtxr
> I renamed the original plot and ran (using R)
> > embedFonts('plot_dY_SpT_zmh_nofonts.ps', outfile='plot_dY_SpT_zmh.ps')
> With this change, the output using dvips from TL2012 shows the correct
> labels, but rendering quality is poor because the "embedFonts" replaces
> outline fonts with the outline paths.
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Volker RW Schaa <v.r.w.schaa at gsi.de>wrote:
>> I have answered to Nicola directly with my (non)findings. As I produced
>> a number of PDF files I sent them directly.
>> The report Acrobat Professional produced in 'Compare Documents' didn't
>> show any changes other then different fonts (Times vs Nimbus).
>> For me all PS files converted to PDF look exactly the same.
>> Volker
>> On 20/11/2012 01:01, Karl Berry wrote:
>>>      When I use dvips from texlive-2012, the figure in the output
>>>      postscript file misses part of the axis labels and labels inside the
>>>      plot. However, if I use instead dvips from texlive-2011 all is well.
>>> Thanks for the report, and especially for sending all the needed files.
>>> I'll look at it as soon as I have a chance, if no one else gets there
>>> first.  Offhand, I can't think of any changes in 2012 that would have
>>> affected this :(.
>>> karl
> --
> George N. White III <aa056 at chebucto.ns.ca>
> Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia

George N. White III <aa056 at chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/attachments/20121120/bd9fb405/attachment.html>

More information about the tex-live mailing list