> David Kastrup writes:
> Ikumi Keita writes:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Now I have some spare time, so I'd like to continue to discuss what we
>> should do about this issue.
>> I'm now a bit inclined to take the option (2) and ask gs-devel to
>> provide suitable Postscript(?) code for preview-latex.
Ikumi Keita writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Now I have some spare time, so I'd like to continue to discuss what we
> should do about this issue.
> I'm now a bit inclined to take the option (2) and ask gs-devel to
> provide suitable Postscript(?) code for preview-latex. What do others
> think?
Definitely
Hi all,
Now I have some spare time, so I'd like to continue to discuss what we
should do about this issue.
I'm now a bit inclined to take the option (2) and ask gs-devel to
provide suitable Postscript(?) code for preview-latex. What do others
think?
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
> Ikumi Keita
Ikumi Keita writes:
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>> Thanks for your advice, the attached patch works well. The foreground
>>> color of the generated image matches with the default face of emacs
>>> without `preview-pdf-color-string', at least for gs 9.27 on my machine.
>
> Ah, my bad, I was
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Thanks for your advice, the attached patch works well. The foreground
>> color of the generated image matches with the default face of emacs
>> without `preview-pdf-color-string', at least for gs 9.27 on my machine.
Ah, my bad, I was looking at the outcome of
Ikumi Keita writes:
>> David Kastrup writes:
>> The current code is already a sledgehammer that looks like a "not again"
>> approach of evading yet another changed API. Looking at the history of
>> the recommended replacements, I see that the Ghostscript developers
>> state that some of
> David Kastrup writes:
> The current code is already a sledgehammer that looks like a "not again"
> approach of evading yet another changed API. Looking at the history of
> the recommended replacements, I see that the Ghostscript developers
> state that some of those were removed in some
Ikumi Keita writes:
> [Adding auctex-de...@gnu.org in To: field may result in too many
> duplicated delivery of this message, so I refrain from doing so.]
>
> Hi David and all,
>
>> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> It never was a problem for myself since my windows are black on white.
>> This
[Adding auctex-de...@gnu.org in To: field may result in too many
duplicated delivery of this message, so I refrain from doing so.]
Hi David and all,
> David Kastrup writes:
> It never was a problem for myself since my windows are black on white.
> This code is for people who expect
Ikumi Keita writes:
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>> Are you thinking that it isn't fruitful to follow up the development of
>>> ghostscript every time incompatible change is introduced?
>
>> No since the changes tend to be completely arbitrary. It's absolutely
>> not fruitful but
> David Kastrup writes:
>> Are you thinking that it isn't fruitful to follow up the development of
>> ghostscript every time incompatible change is introduced?
> No since the changes tend to be completely arbitrary. It's absolutely
> not fruitful but exasperating. That doesn't mean that
Ikumi Keita writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> David Kastrup writes:
>> The usual "oh, we decided change is good and clobbered over the previous
>> API." Presumably one of the listed hooks can be used instead, possibly
>> mimicking what the mentioned patch does to lib/pdf2dsc.ps .
>
> Are you
Hi David,
> David Kastrup writes:
> The usual "oh, we decided change is good and clobbered over the previous
> API." Presumably one of the listed hooks can be used instead, possibly
> mimicking what the mentioned patch does to lib/pdf2dsc.ps .
Are you thinking that it isn't fruitful to
David Kastrup writes:
> preview-pdf-color-string seems to be the seminal problem.
> [...]
>
> 2019-03-19 09:25:48 -0700
> Ray Johnston
> ebbb3ec7d20b5f4c444eb11fc9835e07229ccbd9
>
> Fix lib/pdf2dsc.ps to use documented Ghostscript pdf procedures.
>
> We eliminated
Ikumi Keita writes:
> Hi Gennady and Hua,
>
>> Gennady Uraltsev writes:
>> Hello,
>> It seems to be the same problem as I posted here:
>
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-auctex/2019-05/msg0.html
>
> Both confirmed. David, do you have any outlook about this problem?
Hi Gennady and Hua,
> Gennady Uraltsev writes:
> Hello,
> It seems to be the same problem as I posted here:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-auctex/2019-05/msg0.html
Both confirmed. David, do you have any outlook about this problem? It
seems that gs 9.27 is incompatible with
16 matches
Mail list logo
