On 9 April 2005 at 20:00, giuseppe bonacci wrote:
| Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > And while use upstream's Makefile for that, I need a clumsy hack for the
| > pictures:
| >
| > cd doc && \
| > for i in *.eps; do \
| > echo Converting $$i to pdf... && epstopdf $$i ; \
| > done && $(MAKE) pdf
| >
|
| This is the standard (only?) way to have pdf(la)tex include EPS graphics,
afaik.
| It fails on a large bunch of pictures ---covering the chapter about "Random
| Number Distributions"--- that are not "file inclusion" specials.
|
| > [...]
| >
| > I haven't played with ps2pdf in a while, but usually found pdflatex et al to
| > be _much_ superior. ps2pdf ends up with bitmaps, doesn't it?
| >
|
| Probably that depends on the contents of the PS file. And many problems are
| solved by the current tetex-extra package.
But that is already used -- the package is built in pbuilder / chroot
environment which freshly installed packages from Debian unstable ("sid").
So when you write
In fresh {\it debian/sarge\/} \TeX\ installations, by default {\sl
dvips\/} uses Bluesky's Type~1 fonts --- instead of Computer Modern bitmapped
fonts --- when the {\tt tetex-extra} package is installed.
we're already there.
| Please, install tetex-extra and run the attached shell script. I cannot tell
| any visual difference between the three distinct pdf files produced, except
of
| course for the first not showing the picture. I attach only the one made by
| ps2pdf, to avoid filling your mailbox.
I agree that that one looks pretty as far as the fonts are concerned. But
for the manual as a whole does 'dvips ....; ps2pdf ...' create the thumbnails
etc pp that the pdf would contain with pdflatex?
Dirk
| best regards.
| g.b.
|
--
Better to have an approximate answer to the right question than a precise
answer to the wrong question. -- John Tukey as quoted by John Chambers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
