Uploaded image for project: 'JDK'
  1. JDK
  2. JDK-6192865

Java 2D: Type 3 postscript fonts should be rejected immediately.

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Icon: P4 P4
    • 6
    • 1.4.0
    • client-libs
    • None
    • 2d
    • beta
    • generic
    • generic

      On Solaris 10 there is an unsupported free software package which contains
      a Type 3 Postscript font:
      =============
      johnson # grep pcfont.pfa /var/sadm/install/contents
      /usr/sfw/share/a2ps/fonts/pcfont.pfa f none 0444 root bin 19263 12256 1099040607 SUNWa2psu
      johnson# pkginfo -l SUNWa2psu
         PKGINST: SUNWa2psu
            NAME: a2ps - GNU Any to PostScript filter (user)
        CATEGORY: system
            ARCH: sparc
         VERSION: 11.10.0,REV=2004.10.29.03.04
         BASEDIR: /
          VENDOR: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
            DESC: a2ps - GNU Any to PostScript filter (user) 4.13
          PSTAMP: sfw1020041029030751
        INSTDATE: nov 08 2004 14:31
         HOTLINE: Please contact your local service provider
          STATUS: completely installed
           FILES: 260 installed pathnames
                         6 shared pathnames
                        18 directories
                        10 executables
                     11020 blocks used (approx)
      =============

      Type 3 Postscript fonts are intended for embedding in jobs that will
      be sent to an environment in which there is a full postscript interpreter.
      Without that you can't handle Type 3 fonts. The JDK rasteriser doesn't have
      such support so ideally we should reject these fonts on opening.

      JDK 1.5 can in fact parse the name out of the file so will enumerate the font,
      but when you try to use it, discovers problems and rejects the font, so you
      will get it replaced with Dialog.
      It would be better to not enumerate the font at all.

      JDk 1.4.2_06 fares worse - it crashes outright when trying to use the font.

      This was discovered when trying to verify bug 5096063. It appeared that the
      fix was failing, but in fact it was this unrelated problem.
      The recommendation would be do not install that package.


      ###@###.### 2004-11-09 18:24:57 GMT

            igor Igor Nekrestyanov (Inactive)
            prr Philip Race
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:
              Imported:
              Indexed: