Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> You're welcome. As a postscript, I entered a bug report on it and found
> out this is apparently classified as a feature rather than a bug. The
> developers consider anything the user puts in the preamble (such as
> graphics in a footer) to be the user's responsibility. That makes sense
> to me (it would be an awful task to defend against anything the user
> might hypothetically stuff into the preamble), although I think that
> scanning for "\includegraphics" should not be too hard.
It would be very hard if not impossible to do this in a reliable way. For
example, the includegraphics command may be in a comment, then it should
not be evaluated. Or it might be used in the definition of a macro that
might or might not be used later, so it is unclear whether the graphics
package should be loaded.
> Also, Uwe Stoehr pointed out that
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> {\usepackage{graphicx}}{}
>
> would be a safer entry in the preamble, since it would prevent graphicx
> being loaded twice if you later added images to the text.
AFAIK it does not matter at all whether graphicx is loaded twice, so this
should not be needed, but maybe Uwe knows more here.
Georg
