| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2016/05/18) | 20160519 |
| tempus_fol | Hello, I'm trying to get PDF/A-2B compliant pdfs. I'm using this command: "gs -dPDFA=2 -dAutoRotatePages=/None -dColorConversionStrategy=/UseDeviceIndependentColor -dBATCH -dNOPAE -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sProcessColorModel=DeviceCMYK -sColorConversionStrategyForImages=CMYK -dPDFACompatibilityPolicy=2 -sOutputFile="$i".PDFA.pdf "$i" ~/PDFA_def.ps ./pdfmark" ; pdfmark is adjusted for each input file. PDFA_def.ps is the default one. The | 12:54.41 |
| | gs version is 9.16. This command works 99% of the times. But sometimes (rarely, but still it happens) output files fail the PDFA check. Note that most online PDFA compliance checkers complain on minor things, like xmp date. I only check compliance with VeraPDF. Here's the output of one those rare, failed checks: https://0x0.st/qpS.html ; I can't provide the input file but I may try to offer a working sample | 12:54.42 |
| kens | Can't do any investigation without an example to work from. One that exhibits the problem | 12:55.27 |
| tempus_fol | I'll try my best to provide a sample | 12:55.41 |
| kens | I also have a feeling I fixed something along these lines relatively recently, you might want to try the current release which is 9.19 | 12:56.10 |
| | Finally, if you submit a bug we can mark the attachment as private, which means nobody outside Artifex can see it | 12:57.14 |
| | This commit is the one I was thining of, and looks relevant: | 12:58.58 |
| | http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=commit;h=1a7c20c004643d38b3eb8fb9898927c351a7a63d | 12:58.58 |
| | Also this one: | 13:00.03 |
| | http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=commit;h=1d83aa202383cfccdcf83a80f728106bf19267dd | 13:00.03 |
| | I believe all these are present in the 9.19 release | 13:00.42 |
| tempus_fol | Thank you very much for you prompt answers. I did try to package the new ghostscript for this distro, but some distro-specific patches have to be applied in order for gs to work smoothly. I'll try to repackage it again and/or try the new version somehow. Otherwise I'll ask to submit a bug report. | 13:03.52 |
| kens | Well, if you submit a report and it works on current code, there won't be much I can say :-) I can't understand why GS would need distribution-specific patches to work though. | 13:04.41 |
| | You should be able to pull our code from teh Git repository, or use the tar.gz on the download site, and then run autogen and make | 13:05.22 |
| | THat won;t be the *same* as the distro package (for one thing it won't use shared libraries) but it ought to run fine and it will be the same as we run here, which is quite useful for reporting bugs. | 13:06.08 |
| | An alternative, of course, is to apply those patches to your existing code. Howwever, I can't be certain that there isn't some other requirement. One of those commits said it was the third in a series, and I only found 2 | 13:07.19 |
| | Forward 1 day (to 2016/05/20)>>> | |
IRC Logs