Angus Leeming wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>
>> Angus Leeming wrote:
>>> 2. Export->Latex
>>> buffer.tex will include the snippet:
>>> \input{images/img.pstex_t}
>>> It is the user's responsibility to generate 'images/img.pstex_t'
>>> correctly.
>>
>> No. This is 1.3 behaviour, 1.4 creates 'images/img.pstex_t' and
>> 'images/img.eps.' This is alo a case where the converter is called on the
>> original file and therefore modifies it :-(((
>
> Not so. It modifies a COPY of the original file. That's a big difference.
Not for latex export. For dvi, ps, pdf export, yes. The reason was probably
that we don't want the mangled file names in the .tex file.
> Ok, so the bottom line is that a call to
> Export->Latex
> results in everything that would be needed to compile buffer.tex being
> placed in the /tmp/lyx_tmp.../lyx_tmpbuf0/ directory? The only conceptual
No. The original files are converted where they are, but we should convert
copies in the tmp directory.
> problem thereafter is working out which of these files to 'return' in a
> 'buffer_latex' directory. (This is something we don't do but maybe should
> consider doing in the future?)
This is no problem, we have ExportData::externalFiles() for this purpose.
Right now, I don't understand anymore why we don't convert the files in the
temp dir and then copy them to the buffer dir, because all the needed
machinery is there.
>> Another problem is that fig2pstex.sh does not know of latex's stupid
>> interpretation of relative filenames (relative to the master document,
>> not the included one. Therefore images/img.pstex_t contains
>> \includegraphics{img}, and this fails of course.
>
> Ok, I understand your point. I don't think that it's right because my
> 'nasty' hack changes that to \includegraphics{<absolute path to>/img}, no?
???
It replaces the filename in the .fig file, not the filename in the .pstex_t
file. The latter is wrong, the .fig file is ok. Now I get confused ;-)
> I tried to start wrapping all this up in a class (filename) but got lost
> in the intricacies. I still think that doing so would make life a lot
> easier.
Probably, but I am not so sure about the "lot". And this class can certainly
not be used in figtools.sh!
Georg
