Page MenuHomePhabricator

Handle invalid PDF - Can't process font stream, loading font by the name
Closed, DeclinedPublic

Description

Non standard PDF generated by PDF Complete or JRAPublish aren't readable by GhostScript. The issue seems to be related to fonts.

[ Steps to reproduce bug ]

  1. Go to a non standard PDF file, e.g. [[Commons:File:Electromagnetic Field.pdf]]
  1. Open the thumbnail (e.g. right click > view image) - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Electromagnetic_Field.pdf/page1-463px-Electromagnetic_Field.pdf.jpg

[ Error message ]

Error creating thumbnail: **** Warning: can't process font stream, loading font by the name.

  • Error reading a content stream. The page may be incomplete.
  • File did not complete the page properly and may be damaged.
  • This file had errors that were repaired or ignored.
  • The file was produced by:
  • >>>> PDF Complete 3.5.310.2002 <<<<
  • Please notify the author of the software that produced this
  • file that it does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
  • specification.

convert: no decode delegate for this image format `/tmp/magick-80d5LrYy' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/532.
convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_34b4e206409f-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3011.

[ Side note ]

This upstream bug is related but not identical to our issue:
http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691406


Version: unspecified
Severity: normal

Details

Reference
bz41381

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Low.Nov 22 2014, 1:14 AM
bzimport set Reference to bz41381.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

Shouldn't this be in PdfHandler component?

(In reply to comment #0)

  • This file had errors that were repaired or ignored.
  • The file was produced by:
  • >>>> PDF Complete 3.5.310.2002 <<<<
  • Please notify the author of the software that produced this
  • file that it does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
  • specification.

As servers were just upgraded to newer versions, might be that GhostScript folks decided to be more strict about sticking to standards?
No other pages in that collection affected.

> Priority low for the time being.

As discussed with Aaron, RobLa and Sumana:
As upstream (in this case Ghostscript) developers decided to be stricter by enforcing standards, we won't put resources downstream on investigating how to make checks more lenient again. Hence there are currently no plans to change this behavior. Contacting the author of that file and reuploading a non-broken version is welcome.

Gilles moved this task from Untriaged to Done on the Multimedia board.