[tex-live] gs reports error: "Embedded font uses undefined procedure(s)"

[George N. White III]

On 6/30/07, Thanh Han The <hanthethanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:38:29PM -0300, George N. White III wrote:
> > I have seen this before.  Bug 687824 seems to be related (default
> > versions of missing procedures are defined but when used you get the
> > warning).
> >
> > I don't see the messages in current gs versions, but many distros
> > seem to have stalled at 8.14 or 8.15, so I have filed bug report #689314.
> > If you use a distro that has the old versions, file bug reports.
> >
> > Other sitings of the problem:
> >
> > <http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/2006-May/017624.html>!
>
> thanks for the additional info. The problem seems to be
> related to Charter fonts and some versions of gs. I was
> wondering whether pdftex is the culprit, but it seems not.

I found an old posting for this in

http://groups.google.com/group/de.comp.text.tex

  ---------------------------------------------------------
Christian Ebert <blacktr... at gmx.net> writes:
> \usepackage{charter}
[...]
> $ gs gstest.pdf
> **** Embedded font uses undefined procedure RD
> **** Embedded font uses undefined procedure ND
> [ obiges einige zig mal]
>>>showpage, press <return> to continue<<

> **** This file had errors that were repaired or ignored.
> **** The file was produced by:
> **** >>>> pdfeTeX-1.21a <<<<
> **** Please notify the author of the software that produced this
> **** file that it does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
> **** specification.
[...]
> lmodern oder mathpazo z.B. laufen ohne Warnungen durch.

Interessant. In lmr10.pfb findet man über t1disasm

/RD{string currentfile exch readstring pop}executeonly def
/ND{noaccess def}executeonly def

genau so, wie es in den Type1 Spezifikationen von Adobe steht. In
bchr8a.pfb steht dagegen

userdict /RD {string currentfile exch readstring pop} executeonly put
userdict /ND {noaccess def} executeonly put

Wenn ich die Type1 Spezifikationen richtig verstehe, ist das auch eine
legale Definition für RD und ND. In der PDF Spezifikation finde ich
nichts zu diesem Thema. Sieht für mich eher nach einem Fehler in gs aus.
Vielleicht habe ich aber auch etwas übersehen ...

cheerio
ralf  [Ralf Stubner <ralf.stub... at physik.dot.uni-erlangen.dot.de>]
 -------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
George N. White III <aa056 at chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia