This seems a bit similar, yet different, to the two previous ps2pdf reports.
After upgrading from RHL72 to RHL73, ps2pdf fails to convert a file properly
that worked just fine before:
$ ps2pdf dsr.ps
Error: /rangecheck in --get--
--nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- descender 0
%interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval--
--nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval--
--nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1 3 %oparray_pop 1 3
%oparray_pop 1 3 %oparray_pop .runexec2 --nostringval--
--nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval--
--nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval--
--dict:1038/1476(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:86/200(L)--
--dict:122/300(L)-- --dict:49/200(L)-- --dict:37/52(L)--
--dict:1/17(L)-- --dict:5/17(L)-- --dict:1/3(L)-- --dict:13/14(ro)(L)--
Current allocation mode is local
Current file position is 95746
GNU Ghostscript 6.53: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
(First 4 of 10 pages are created just fine, it seems.)
$ rpm -q ghostscript
The postscript is available at:
6.53-4 was not shipped in 7.3; 6.52-8 was. Does that also show the problem?
Sorry, must have been from a beta.
6.52-8 does also show the problem.
FWIW, 7.05-3 (from rawhide) also does the same thing.
I have the same error, and possibly a smaller reproducable test case.
The file at http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PUBLIC/idraw.ps was generated by idraw.
It worked fine in RH 7.2 and won't ghostview or ps2pdf or even gs in RH 7.3.
It has the same error as above with RH7.3.
What's strange is that revering the ghostscript version does not help.
I tried installing these RPMs on my 7.3 system, but all had the same error:
(i.e., the basic and patched versions in RH 7.2 and 7.3).
This is a duplicate of bug #74633.
The sample file is incorrect. It assumes that FontBBox is an
executable array. Although many fonts are designed this way
there is no such requiriment in the spec. Probably, different RH
versions install different fonts. The file should be
changed to work with both executable and literal
In that case, either xfig (probable) or latex is generating incorrect postscript.
Hmm.. or maybe not: I recall I copied some pics from other sources, I don't know how those were generated.
If you can reproduce it without those, please re-open.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 74633 ***