Hello! A couple of weeks ago I noticed on my Debian 8 (jessie) GNU/Linux that the Cyrillic letters are missing in URW fonts and some others. After some searching and checking, I ran into the following: $ fc-validate /usr/share/ghostscript/9.06/Resource/Font/URWBookmanL-Ligh /usr/share/ghostscript/9.06/Resource/Font/URWBookmanL-Ligh:0 Missing 72 glyph(s) to satisfy the coverage for uk language The same is true for Russian language: $ fc-validate -l ru /usr/share/ghostscript/9.06/Resource/Font/URWBookmanL-Ligh /usr/share/ghostscript/9.06/Resource/Font/URWBookmanL-Ligh:0 Missing 66 glyph(s) to satisfy the coverage for ru language While everything is ok for English language: $ fc-validate -l en /usr/share/ghostscript/9.06/Resource/Font/URWBookmanL-Ligh /usr/share/ghostscript/9.06/Resource/Font/URWBookmanL-Ligh:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language So currently the cyryllic letters are invisible in LibreOffice for the fonts from the Ghostscript collection.
I'm guessing that Debian haven't updated to the latest font release.
(In reply to v_2e from comment #0) > Hello! > A couple of weeks ago I noticed on my Debian 8 (jessie) GNU/Linux that the > Cyrillic letters are missing in URW fonts and some others. > > After some searching and checking, I ran into the following: > > $ fc-validate /usr/share/ghostscript/9.06/Resource/Font/URWBookmanL-Ligh The current version of Ghostscript is 9.20, you appear to be testing the fonts in a release which is now 4 years old. I'd suggest you update to that and try the fonts embedded there. Or as Chris implied, get the latest font set and use that.
FWIW, the current fonts that shipped with Ghostscript 9.20 give these results from fc-validate (NOTE: StandardSymbolsPS and D050000L are substitutes for Symbol and ZapfDingbats hence you wouldn't expect them to have the glyphs for English language locale): C059-BdIta:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language C059-Bold:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language C059-Italic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language C059-Roman:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language D050000L:0 Missing 72 glyph(s) to satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusMonoPS-Bold:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusMonoPS-Italic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusMonoPS-Regular:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusRoman-Bold:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusRoman-BoldItalic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusRoman-Italic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusRoman-Regular:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusSans-Bold:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusSans-BoldOblique:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusSansNarrow-BdOblique:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusSansNarrow-Bold:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusSansNarrow-Oblique:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusSansNarrow-Regular:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusSans-Oblique:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language NimbusSans-Regular:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language P052-Bold:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language P052-BoldItalic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language P052-Italic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language P052-Roman:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language StandardSymbolsPS:0 Missing 72 glyph(s) to satisfy the coverage for en language URWBookman-Demi:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language URWBookman-DemiItalic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language URWBookman-Light:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language URWBookman-LightItalic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language URWGothic-Book:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language URWGothic-BookOblique:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language URWGothic-Demi:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language URWGothic-DemiOblique:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language Z003-MediumItalic:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language
(In reply to Chris Liddell (chrisl) from comment #3) > FWIW, the current fonts that shipped with Ghostscript 9.20 give these > results from fc-validate (NOTE: StandardSymbolsPS and D050000L are > substitutes for Symbol and ZapfDingbats hence you wouldn't expect them to > have the glyphs for English language locale): > ... > URWBookman-Light:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language > ... Yes, as I mentioned above, everything is fine for English on my system also. However, the glyphs are missing for Ukrainian and Russian. Could you please check if it is correct on your system with newer ghostscript version?
In the future please help us out and check the current code before reporting problems. The Bookman Light font has Russian in the current code, I didn't check anything else. fc-validate -l ru URWBookman-Light URWBookman-Light:0 Satisfy the coverage for ru language
(In reply to v_2e from comment #4) > (In reply to Chris Liddell (chrisl) from comment #3) > > FWIW, the current fonts that shipped with Ghostscript 9.20 give these > > results from fc-validate (NOTE: StandardSymbolsPS and D050000L are > > substitutes for Symbol and ZapfDingbats hence you wouldn't expect them to > > have the glyphs for English language locale): > > ... > > URWBookman-Light:0 Satisfy the coverage for en language > > ... > Yes, as I mentioned above, everything is fine for English on my system also. > However, the glyphs are missing for Ukrainian and Russian. Could you please > check if it is correct on your system with newer ghostscript version? Ah, sorry, I saw "uk" and being from Britain, subconsciously "mapped" that to "en". But, as Henry points out, the current fonts seem to be fine.