Processed: Re: Bug#941074: ghostscript: ps2pdf SAFER and transparency interference
Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701624 Bug #941074 [ghostscript] ghostscript: ps2pdf SAFER and transparency interference Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701624'. -- 941074: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=941074 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#941074: ghostscript: ps2pdf SAFER and transparency interference
Control: forwarded -1 https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701624 [ replying via bugreport ] Quoting Markus Demleitner (2019-09-24 13:16:33) > Hi Jonas, > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:21:15PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Above minimal code is processed by LaTeX, not Ghostscript directly. > > > > Please provide a (minimal, preferrably) example of date and commands > > directly involving Ghostscript. > > The postscript code produced above is a bit unwieldy in comparison > to the TeX source, but hand-crafting a minimal piece of postscript > is... unattractive to me at this point. > > So, I'm attaching the dvips-produced postscript and, in case that's > not coming through, I'll keep > http://www.tfiu.de/transparent-things.ps while this bug is open. > > To reproduce the bug, run > > ps2pdf14 transparent-things.ps > > (no transparency in transparent-things.pdf) and > > ps2pdf14 -dNOSAFER transparent-things.ps > > (transparency in transparent-things.pdf). Thanks - that's qite useful: I have now passed this report upstream. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#941074: ghostscript: ps2pdf SAFER and transparency interference
Hi Markus,
Quoting Markus Demleitner (2019-09-24 11:36:09)
> ps2pdf14 as delivered in buster will only produce PDF transparency
> when run with -dNOSAFER. This deviates from previous releases (I'm
> quite sure about jessie), when transparency was produced without
> further configuration. Although I *might* see some relationship to
> accepting pdfmarks, the connection between SAFER and transparent
> colours frankly strikes me as just a little non-intuitive (but that
> may be because I don't know what's going on when producing
> transparency in PDFs).
>
> Because of this, I'd suggest that if turning off PDF transparency
> without -dNOSAFER is intentional, that should be documented in the
> NEWS, even more so as I couldn't make out that fact in the upstream
> Use.htm that the current 9.28~~rc1~dfsg-1 NEWS item refers to.
> Perhaps that particular item could be amended with saying something
> like "Note that that has some rather unexpected consequences (e.g.,
> PDF transparency is now lost without -dNOSAFER)."
>
> Here's my minimal working example:
>
> With the LaTeX document
>
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{pstricks}
> \begin{document}
>
> \psframebox*[linecolor=white,fillcolor=red,fillstyle=solid,
> opacity=0.85,framesep=4mm]{abc}
> \vskip -9mm
> \psframebox*[fillcolor=white, opacity=0.5,strokeopacity=0.5,
> fillstyle=solid,framesep=4mm,linewidth=3pt,linecolor=black]{abc}
>
> \end{document}
>
> in a.tex, run
>
> latex a;dvips a;ps2pdf a.ps
>
> and the second white box obscures most of the red box in the background
> (i.e., pstricks opacity is ignored). Run
>
> latex a;dvips a;ps2pdf -dNOSAFER a.ps
>
> and the two boxes blend as expected.
Thanks for reporting this issue.
Above minimal code is processed by LaTeX, not Ghostscript directly.
Please provide a (minimal, preferrably) example of date and commands
directly involving Ghostscript.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
Bug#941074: ghostscript: ps2pdf SAFER and transparency interference
Package: ghostscript
Version: 9.27~dfsg-2+deb10u2
Severity: minor
ps2pdf14 as delivered in buster will only produce PDF transparency when
run with -dNOSAFER. This deviates from previous releases (I'm quite
sure about jessie), when transparency was produced without further
configuration. Although I *might* see some relationship to accepting
pdfmarks, the connection between SAFER and transparent colours frankly
strikes me as just a little non-intuitive (but that may be because I
don't know what's going on when producing transparency in PDFs).
Because of this, I'd suggest that if turning off PDF transparency
without -dNOSAFER is intentional, that should be documented in the NEWS,
even more so as I couldn't make out that fact in the upstream Use.htm
that the current 9.28~~rc1~dfsg-1 NEWS item refers to. Perhaps that
particular item could be amended with saying something like "Note that
that has some rather unexpected consequences (e.g., PDF transparency is
now lost without -dNOSAFER)."
Here's my minimal working example:
With the LaTeX document
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{pstricks}
\begin{document}
\psframebox*[linecolor=white,fillcolor=red,fillstyle=solid,
opacity=0.85,framesep=4mm]{abc}
\vskip -9mm
\psframebox*[fillcolor=white, opacity=0.5,strokeopacity=0.5,
fillstyle=solid,framesep=4mm,linewidth=3pt,linecolor=black]{abc}
\end{document}
in a.tex, run
latex a;dvips a;ps2pdf a.ps
and the second white box obscures most of the red box in the background
(i.e., pstricks opacity is ignored). Run
latex a;dvips a;ps2pdf -dNOSAFER a.ps
and the two boxes blend as expected.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.1
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 5.1.9 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN, TAINT_OOT_MODULE
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=C.UTF-8
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)
Versions of packages ghostscript depends on:
ii libc6 2.28-10
ii libgs9 9.27~dfsg-2+deb10u2
Versions of packages ghostscript recommends:
ii gsfonts 1:8.11+urwcyr1.0.7~pre44-4.4
Versions of packages ghostscript suggests:
ii ghostscript-x 9.27~dfsg-2+deb10u2
-- no debconf information
