Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:39:27AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: >> The workflow for producing the Debian installation instructions uses >> *dvipdf*, not dvipdf*m* or dvipdf*mx*. That's a wrapper which envokes >> dvips and gs. I have no idea why that was chosen - perhaps just >> "historical reasons". > > Actually, the d-i manual uses dvipdf, but many other documents in the Debian > Documentation Project use debiandoc2latexpdf which uses 'pdflatex' as a > backend. The reason for this is that the d-i manul is written in Docbook-XML > but most other documentation is (still) written using DebiandocSGML. > > Are there any known issues/recommendations with pdflatex we should take into > account in the build process?
I've never seen dvipdf (the dvips/gs wrapper) being used other than in automated package building, whereas loads of people use pdflatex for daily work, with complicated documents and/or workflow, and still quite a lot (in particular in non-western countries) use latex and dvipdfm(x). Therefore it's likely that there are actually less issues with both of these ways than with dvips/gs. The only drawback is that, as bugs are being fixed, some workarounds might stop producing the desired results. Bitrot therefore will likely have worse effects than with dvips/gs. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
