Bug#1067614: texlive-latex-extra: pdfcomment docs reference the cloud instead of local files; also font option broken
Control: tags -1 + wontfix On 24.03.2024 18:29, Manny wrote: Hi Manny, thanks to Norbert for explaining, why we can't solve this issue. I tag that bug wontfix. If only the Debian-specific bug is worked and the rest of this report is closed, perhaps that’s fair enough. I’ve gone as far as I’m willing to go. I just want these problems to be recorded /somewhere/ amid the author being unreachable. I'm aware of a bug in our TL packages, were both (submitter and upstream author) are dead. Still the bug is open, I just removed the "forwarded" flag. BTW, there’s perhaps a defect in the Package-specific info that the reportbug tool prints for texlive-latex-extra. It prints this: ===8< Please read and follow the instructions in the first lines below the text: "-- Package-specific info:". Thank you. Please don't add attachments > 100KB. They won't make it through our mailing list and we won't see the report! ===8< Around 800k of attachments were apparently accepted okay for bug 1067612, so the above-mentioned 100k limit may not be in force. This is explained in the text: the DBTS is able to handle these kind of attachments, but the mailing list server won't forward the E-Mail to my private E-Mail account. As I don't scan the web pages of the bug tracker on a regular basis, changes in bugs or new bugs may remain undiscovered (by me) for a while. Hilmar -- sigfault OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1067614: texlive-latex-extra: pdfcomment docs reference the cloud instead of local files; also font option broken
Hi Manny, thanks for the detailed and long report, but I fear that none of the issues are related to Debian nor TeX Live itself either. On Sun, 24 Mar 2024, Manny wrote: > There is a Debian-specific bug in the manual located here: > > /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/latex/pdfcomment/pdfcomment.pdf > > Page 7 links to example.pdf here: > > http://mirror.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/pdfcomment/doc/example.pdf This is what the source document does. We don't rewrite all the source documents, nor do we compile all the pdfs, neither does TeX Live. Thus, this is an issue that can only be fixed by upupstream. > Apart from that minor issue, there’s a bigger problem upstream. The > “font” option is somewhat broken. Use of the font option produces Again, this is a problem of the original package, nothing we here at Debian nor I over at TeX Live can deal with. > Poppler is apparently dropping the ball on fonts, even the so-called I wouldn't be surprised, Poppler in Debian has an nearly infinite history of breaking APIs as well as everything else. There is a reason we on the TeX Live side use an embedded libpoppler, since anything else is a guarantee for breakage. > It’s worth noting that the Debian Social Contract (DSC) and Debian > Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) condemn discrimination. Blind people > cannot likely get passed all those CAPTCHAs to reach the upstream bug > tracker. One might say the upstream bug tracker is not Debian’s > problem. OTOH, the texlive package (understandably) steers people to > file bugs upstream because this beast has the complexity of an OS in > itself. But at the same time there’s an infrastructural problem when > people are being directed into those shitty upstream walled gardens > particularly when thy are discriminatory. I don’t have the answer -- > just laying out the problem. Sorry to hear that, but again, this is out of our reach. We cannot save the world and all software developers. As said, at Debian we cannot do anything to fix this. At TeX Live, we cannot do either. Best regards Norbert -- PREINING Norbert https://www.preining.info arXiv / Cornell University + IFMGA Guide + TU Wien + TeX Live GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
Bug#1067614: texlive-latex-extra: pdfcomment docs reference the cloud instead of local files; also font option broken
Package: texlive-latex-extra Version: 2020.20210202-3 Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: debbug.texlive-latex-ex...@sideload.33mail.com There is a Debian-specific bug in the manual located here: /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/latex/pdfcomment/pdfcomment.pdf Page 7 links to example.pdf here: http://mirror.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/pdfcomment/doc/example.pdf It references the cloud location when in fact there is a local copy of example.pdf in the same directory as the manual itself. This occurs in a few other places in the manual, such as page 12. The links should reference the local file so there is no network dependency. Anything can go wrong with links into the cloud, such as websites joining Cloudflare (which then denies access to several demographics of people). Apart from that minor issue, there’s a bigger problem upstream. The “font” option is somewhat broken. Use of the font option produces documents that only render correctly in Adobe Acrobat. Bug 1067612 gives more detail, sample code, and sample output: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067612 Poppler is apparently dropping the ball on fonts, even the so-called 14 standard fonts that the manual claims are safe. The manual needs to go further to clarify and warn. I wasted a lot of time trying to figure out why even the most mainstream fonts were not rendering before someone told me to try Acrobat. There is very likely a defect in pdfcomment that cause a giant arrow to appear in the middle of every page where \pdffreetextcomment is used. It’s apparent in the attachments to bug 1067612: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=1067612;filename=example_Acro.djvu;msg=5 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=2;bug=1067612;filename=annotation_font_samples_Acro.djvu;msg=5 It’s also worth noting that the default font isn’t good for the annotation purpose. An uppercase “I” is just a vertical bar which is indistinguishable from a digit 1 or lowercase “l”. It’s not a good default to be trapped with for annotations where you do not generally have much text to infer context. E.g. if a lawyer wants to label something “Exhibit I” there can be confusion.. is that Exhibit 1 or Exhibit “l”? There is a problem when pdfcomment is imported before the datetime2 package. This causes an option clash error: \usepackage{pdfcomment} \usepackage[calc,useregional]{datetime2} But if that sequence is reversed, there is no error. I’m not sure if that’s something that needs to be fixed in the code, but if not then I suggest noting the idiosyncracy in the manual because it can be tricky for users to sort out the problem. I tried to report the upstream-specific bugs upstream. It was a disaster. Hence why this bug report herein is a blend of upstream and downstream bugs. I followed this process in attempt to register on bitbucket: ① solved a CAPTCHA just to reach a reg. form (I have image loading disabled but the graphical CAPTCHA puzzle displayed anyway [Firefox bug?]) ② disposable email address rejected (so Bitbucket can protect themselves from spam but other people cannot?) ③ tried a forwarding acct instead of disposable (accepted) ③ another CAPTCHA emerged, this time Google reCAPTCHA. I never solve these because it violates so many digital right principles and I boycott Google. I made an exception for this experiment. The puzzle was empty because I disable images (can’t afford the bandwidth). Exceptionally, I enable images for this poorly designed website. I managed to solve enough of the ambiguous puzzles to get a pass. ④ got the green checkmark ✓ ⑤ clicked “sign up” ⑥ “We are having trouble verifying reCAPTCHA for this request. Please try again. If the problem persists, try another browser/device or reach out to Atlassian Support.” So Google profited from my labor in solving a reCAPTCHA then my access was refused by Bitbucket anyway. It’s worth noting that the Debian Social Contract (DSC) and Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) condemn discrimination. Blind people cannot likely get passed all those CAPTCHAs to reach the upstream bug tracker. One might say the upstream bug tracker is not Debian’s problem. OTOH, the texlive package (understandably) steers people to file bugs upstream because this beast has the complexity of an OS in itself. But at the same time there’s an infrastructural problem when people are being directed into those shitty upstream walled gardens particularly when thy are discriminatory. I don’t have the answer -- just laying out the problem. It gets worse. So then (step ⑦) I attempted to e-mail the code author: ===8< status=bounced (host $authors_own_mx_svr said: 550-host $my_ip is listed at combined.mail.abusix.zone (127.0.0.11); 550 see https://lookup.abusix.com/search?q=$my_ip (in reply to RCPT TO command)) ===8< If only the Debian-specific bug is worked and the rest of this report is