Re: Ghostscript 8.63: Unrecoverable error

[Wolfgang Engelmann]

Am Thursday 09 April 2009 19:34:54 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
 Wolfgang Engelmann schrieb:
  I am still getting
 
  GPL Ghostscript 8.64: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
  dvipng warning: No GhostScript pngalpha output, cannot render raw
  PostScript

 Try out to update or reinstall ImageMagick. When this doesn't help, I would
 report this as bug to the Ghostscript developers.

 regards Uwe

Thanks again,

 however, upgrading ImageMagick from 7:6.3.7.9dfsg1 to dfsg2-1
did not help. 
Do you happen to have an address of the Ghostscript developers?

I noticed texlive in Debian squeeze is still 2007
How could I update to 2008? I have a DANTE TeX collection containing TeXLive 
2008, it has an installer, but I don't know how well it goes along with the 
Debian way of installing
My hope is, that something in TeXLive 2008 might cure the Unrecoverable error

Wolfgang

-- 
-
Wolfgang Engelmann
Schlossgartenstrasse 22
D-72070 Tübingen
Tel 07071 68325

index in TOC

[Hubert Christiaen]

When I look at the help files, I see that the index is mentionned in the TOC 
seemingly without special instruction. I am using the minitoc package and the 
appendix contains the GNU licence text and the index. There is no separate 
minitoc for the appendix. But my index is not mentionned in the TOC. As it is 
generated by a simple instruction and is not a starred element, I do not see 
what command I must use to get it in the TOC. Somebody some experience?

Sincerely,
Hubert

-- 
Hubert Christiaen
Bloesemlaan 17
3360 Korbeek-Lo
Belgium   

Re: index in TOC

[Waluyo Adi Siswanto]

On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 16:44 +0800, Waluyo Adi Siswanto wrote:
 On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 10:30 +0200, Hubert Christiaen wrote:
  When I look at the help files, I see that the index is mentionned in the 
  TOC 
  seemingly without special instruction. I am using the minitoc package and 
  the 
  appendix contains the GNU licence text and the index. There is no separate 
  minitoc for the appendix. But my index is not mentionned in the TOC. As it 
  is 
  generated by a simple instruction and is not a starred element, I do not 
  see 
  what command I must use to get it in the TOC. Somebody some experience?
  
  Sincerely,
  Hubert
  
 I just write a simple command intoc
 from Documents  Settings, in document class dialog, Class options -
 Customs.
 
 Regards
 WAS
 
Ops sorry I ... think idxtotoc, for bibliography similarly bibtotoc

WAS

Re: index in TOC

[Hubert Christiaen]

On zaterdag 11 april 2009, WAS wrote:
 I just write a simple command intoc
 from Documents  Settings, in document class dialog, Class options -
 Customs.
 Ops sorry I ... think idxtotoc, for bibliography similarly bibtotoc
The idxtotoc does not seem to be sufficient.

Sincerely,
Hubert

-- 
Hubert Christiaen
Bloesemlaan 17
3360 Korbeek-Lo
Belgium   

similar typeface for monospaced and proportional?

[Jeremy C. Reed]

I am looking for some typeface that looks the same for both monospaced and 
proportional. I have a document with a mix of fixed width text that is to 
be lined up (verbatim environment). I'd prefer to not use tables to line 
up the content.

I want that font to look the same as the other variable-width fonts -- 
with the main difference just the spacing between the type. Currently 
there is a significant visible difference -- I am hoping it will be more 
similar.

Any suggestions for a typeface that looks very close to the same for both 
fixed width and variable width?

Or is there a way to tell TeX to use a proportional typeface but force it 
to use a fixed width so it will line up?

Currently, I am using
% for palatino font
\usepackage{mathpazo}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{t1enc}
\usepackage{microtype}
and verbatim environments.

The fonts used are:

name type  emb sub uni object ID
 - --- --- --- -
LRUUGQ+URWPalladioL-Roma Type 1yes yes no   6  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no   7  0
ARWHNO+CMSY10Type 1yes yes no  14  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  18  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  19  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  23  0
JAFOHT+URWPalladioL-Roma-Slant_167   Type 1yes yes no  54  0
UBBDOK+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1020 Type 1yes yes no  57  0
PHLRTI+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_988  Type 1yes yes no  60  0
RXKJGH+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_980  Type 1yes yes no  63  0
VVGSKL+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_996  Type 1yes yes no  66  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  71  0
UYLLUF+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1004 Type 1yes yes no  74  0
MXTISL+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_992  Type 1yes yes no  77  0
OSCZAI+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1008 Type 1yes yes no  89  0
DZEPRE+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1012 Type 1yes yes no  92  0
PDCOGY+URWPalladioL-Bold Type 1yes yes no  98  0
QBSUBD+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1016 Type 1yes yes no 104  0
EIJDSS+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_984  Type 1yes yes no 111  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no 112  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no 166  0
ORRXDO+URWPalladioL-Ital Type 1yes yes no1423  0
AXBKIS+URWPalladioL-Ital-Extend_980  Type 1yes yes no1426  0

(I don't know what none is.)

Re: Installation Problems

[Paul A. Rubin]

Richard Heck wrote:

Neither this installer, nor any other, installs absolutely every LaTeX 
file someone might want to use with LyX. It's the job of your LaTeX 
installation to deal with that. In your case, that's apparently MikTeX, 
and my understanding was that it  should install the LaTeX files you 
need on the fly. If it's not doing so, I'd investigate it.




Richard's correct.  Go to your Start menu, in the MiKTeX 2.7 group, and 
run the application named Settings.  In the Package installation 
section of the General tab, set the on-the-fly option to either Yes 
or, if you don't mind being nagged, Ask me first (my preferred 
choice).  Note that you'll need to be connected to the Internet when you 
are using LaTeX.


If you prefer (or if you don't normally have an Internet connection 
available), you can use the Browse Packages application to install a 
bunch of needed packages at one time.


If this doesn't solve the problem, then let us know what fails when you 
try to install a package.


/Paul

Re: What has happened with Lyx V1.6.2-1

[Paul A. Rubin]

E. Kaplan wrote:
My guess is that there is some subtle interaction between your 
machine/software settings and the Lyx. I also have unexplained 
difficulties with 1.6.2:  it worked perfectly (altwininstaller complete) 
on 3 windows machines
(Vista, XP pro), but on a fourth machine it does not launch properly 
when I click on a Lyx file.  Instead, it opens WinEdt (my Latex editor). 
I tried to change the file associations for Lyx files, but it fails.  
The odd thing is that if I launch Lyx by itself,
and load a Lyx file into it, all works fine.  I have this problem only 
on one Windows machine.

On a kubuntu (8.10) machine I have no problems with 1.6.2.
I realize that this is useless information for you, but perhaps someone 
here will see what is going on

for either of us.



The Windows Registry is a rat's nest.  I've seen something like this 
happen once or twice.  My best guess is that multiple registry keys 
point to the document type, and the one you're fixing is not the one the 
system is using when you double-click an icon.


About all I can suggest is to (a) run a registry cleaning utility and 
(b) use an extension editing utility, rather than the menu built into 
Windows Explorer, to change the extension.  For the former, CCleaner is 
a wonderful bit of freeware that cleans out temporary files that have 
outlived their usefulness, and contains a registry editor.  For the 
latter, I can recommend WAssociate (also freeware).


HTH,
Paul

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Piero Faustini]

 If you wish, you can decode ERT in the collapsable buttons as Embedded Raw 
 Text. 

No, no, Evil Red TeX. It's Evil. It's Red. It's TeX. It is scaring and 
fashinating as some Red Army logo. +1 for keeping it.

Lyx install fails in MiKTex install

[Ian S. Worthington]

Hi 

Being a longtime user of IBM's now withdrawn BookMaster markup language, and
having been severly disappointed with the usability of DocBook, I'm quite
excited to have now discovered Lyx.

I'm having problems installing it on my Windows XP system though.  The Lyx
install spawns the MikTex install which runs fine, albeit slowly, up until: 
 
fndbmpm: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\MiKTeX\2.7\miktex\config\5c9c2effd97adbeacc8bf220bf73149c.fnd  
 
at which point it just stops.  
 
I've seen this has been reported a few times by other MikTex users but I can't
see any solution has ever been posted. 
 
Whilst I realise this is not a Lyx problem per se, any help, advice or
workarounds would be most welcome. 
 
Thanks. 
 
i 


ian 
... 

Ian S. Worthington, MBCS.

me: http://isw.me.uk/ 
photos: http://gallery.isw.me.uk/ 


Free 2GB online backups:
  https://mozy.com/?code=HJW4C8 (code gets you 256MB extra)

Web hosting and support from $2.99/month:
  www.cirtexhosting.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=463


Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, sed dulcius pro patria vivere, et
dulcissimus pro patria biber. Ergo, bibiamo pro salute patriae.

Re: What has happened with Lyx V1.6.2-1

[Thomas Steffen]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Robert Betz
robert.b...@newcastle.edu.au wrote:
 Basiscally things that did work on V1.6.1-1 now don't on V1.6.2-1.  For
 example with the Alt installer during install it cannot find the Miktex
 distribution and the path to it has to be manually set.  Once installed
 then when I load up files that have PDF graphics they are not rendered
 correctly on the screen — there is a lot of extra space around them.

I am having this very problem on Ubuntu Jaunty/amd64. I think it has
been pretty constant all through the 1.6 series, but I do not have it
on a Jaunty/i386 installation. I am not sure whether that is the
essential difference, or it is something related to ghostscript.

Regards,
Thomas

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Thomas Steffen]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller sp...@lyx.org wrote:
 Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
  The reference to embedded LaTeX within a document being written with LyX
  as Evil Red Text (ERT) has bothered me from the first time I saw it.

I agree, it is not a useful term.

 If you wish, you can decode ERT in the collapsable buttons as Embedded Raw
 Text.

That is a lot better, and it does convey the same idea that it should
only be used as a last resort. But while keeping the acronym may be
handy, it could make it more difficult to break the habit. Maybe we
should rename it to raw output, raw code, or even transparent raw
code.

Regards,
Thomas

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Uwe Stöhr]

I'm impressed that you persevered so long discussing about a name of a term.

Except of the abbreviation ERT as short name for the TeX code inset LyX consistently names it TeX 
code (in the tooltips, toolbar, documentation files) because that's what it is - code for the 
language TeX.


regards Uwe

Re: Lyx install fails in MiKTex install

[Uwe Stöhr]

Ian S. Worthington schrieb:


I'm having problems installing it on my Windows XP system though.  The Lyx
install spawns the MikTex install which runs fine, albeit slowly, up until: 
 
fndbmpm: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\MiKTeX\2.7\miktex\config\5c9c2effd97adbeacc8bf220bf73149c.fnd  
 
at which point it just stops.


What installer have you used?
This is nevertheless most probably a problem with a MiKTeX server. I would try to uninstall LyX 
completely, then also uninstall MiKTeX (the part that is already installed). Then install MiKTeX 
manually using the basic MiKTeX installer you find at miktex.org. Finally reinstall LyX using the 
complete version of the alternative installer.


I hope this way it works.

(The MiKTeX server is refreshed every week so at least it should work after 
easter.)

regards Uwe

Re: Ghostscript 8.63: Unrecoverable error

[Wolfgang Engelmann]

Am Thursday 09 April 2009 19:34:54 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
 Wolfgang Engelmann schrieb:
  I am still getting
 
  GPL Ghostscript 8.64: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
  dvipng warning: No GhostScript pngalpha output, cannot render raw
  PostScript

 Try out to update or reinstall ImageMagick. When this doesn't help, I would
 report this as bug to the Ghostscript developers.

 regards Uwe

Thanks again,

 however, upgrading ImageMagick from 7:6.3.7.9dfsg1 to dfsg2-1
did not help. 
Do you happen to have an address of the Ghostscript developers?

I noticed texlive in Debian squeeze is still 2007
How could I update to 2008? I have a DANTE TeX collection containing TeXLive 
2008, it has an installer, but I don't know how well it goes along with the 
Debian way of installing
My hope is, that something in TeXLive 2008 might cure the Unrecoverable error

Wolfgang

-- 
-
Wolfgang Engelmann
Schlossgartenstrasse 22
D-72070 Tübingen
Tel 07071 68325

index in TOC

[Hubert Christiaen]

When I look at the help files, I see that the index is mentionned in the TOC 
seemingly without special instruction. I am using the minitoc package and the 
appendix contains the GNU licence text and the index. There is no separate 
minitoc for the appendix. But my index is not mentionned in the TOC. As it is 
generated by a simple instruction and is not a starred element, I do not see 
what command I must use to get it in the TOC. Somebody some experience?

Sincerely,
Hubert

-- 
Hubert Christiaen
Bloesemlaan 17
3360 Korbeek-Lo
Belgium   

Re: index in TOC

[Waluyo Adi Siswanto]

On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 16:44 +0800, Waluyo Adi Siswanto wrote:
 On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 10:30 +0200, Hubert Christiaen wrote:
  When I look at the help files, I see that the index is mentionned in the 
  TOC 
  seemingly without special instruction. I am using the minitoc package and 
  the 
  appendix contains the GNU licence text and the index. There is no separate 
  minitoc for the appendix. But my index is not mentionned in the TOC. As it 
  is 
  generated by a simple instruction and is not a starred element, I do not 
  see 
  what command I must use to get it in the TOC. Somebody some experience?
  
  Sincerely,
  Hubert
  
 I just write a simple command intoc
 from Documents  Settings, in document class dialog, Class options -
 Customs.
 
 Regards
 WAS
 
Ops sorry I ... think idxtotoc, for bibliography similarly bibtotoc

WAS

Re: index in TOC

[Hubert Christiaen]

On zaterdag 11 april 2009, WAS wrote:
 I just write a simple command intoc
 from Documents  Settings, in document class dialog, Class options -
 Customs.
 Ops sorry I ... think idxtotoc, for bibliography similarly bibtotoc
The idxtotoc does not seem to be sufficient.

Sincerely,
Hubert

-- 
Hubert Christiaen
Bloesemlaan 17
3360 Korbeek-Lo
Belgium   

similar typeface for monospaced and proportional?

[Jeremy C. Reed]

I am looking for some typeface that looks the same for both monospaced and 
proportional. I have a document with a mix of fixed width text that is to 
be lined up (verbatim environment). I'd prefer to not use tables to line 
up the content.

I want that font to look the same as the other variable-width fonts -- 
with the main difference just the spacing between the type. Currently 
there is a significant visible difference -- I am hoping it will be more 
similar.

Any suggestions for a typeface that looks very close to the same for both 
fixed width and variable width?

Or is there a way to tell TeX to use a proportional typeface but force it 
to use a fixed width so it will line up?

Currently, I am using
% for palatino font
\usepackage{mathpazo}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{t1enc}
\usepackage{microtype}
and verbatim environments.

The fonts used are:

name type  emb sub uni object ID
 - --- --- --- -
LRUUGQ+URWPalladioL-Roma Type 1yes yes no   6  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no   7  0
ARWHNO+CMSY10Type 1yes yes no  14  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  18  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  19  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  23  0
JAFOHT+URWPalladioL-Roma-Slant_167   Type 1yes yes no  54  0
UBBDOK+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1020 Type 1yes yes no  57  0
PHLRTI+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_988  Type 1yes yes no  60  0
RXKJGH+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_980  Type 1yes yes no  63  0
VVGSKL+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_996  Type 1yes yes no  66  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  71  0
UYLLUF+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1004 Type 1yes yes no  74  0
MXTISL+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_992  Type 1yes yes no  77  0
OSCZAI+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1008 Type 1yes yes no  89  0
DZEPRE+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1012 Type 1yes yes no  92  0
PDCOGY+URWPalladioL-Bold Type 1yes yes no  98  0
QBSUBD+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1016 Type 1yes yes no 104  0
EIJDSS+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_984  Type 1yes yes no 111  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no 112  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no 166  0
ORRXDO+URWPalladioL-Ital Type 1yes yes no1423  0
AXBKIS+URWPalladioL-Ital-Extend_980  Type 1yes yes no1426  0

(I don't know what none is.)

Re: Installation Problems

[Paul A. Rubin]

Richard Heck wrote:

Neither this installer, nor any other, installs absolutely every LaTeX 
file someone might want to use with LyX. It's the job of your LaTeX 
installation to deal with that. In your case, that's apparently MikTeX, 
and my understanding was that it  should install the LaTeX files you 
need on the fly. If it's not doing so, I'd investigate it.




Richard's correct.  Go to your Start menu, in the MiKTeX 2.7 group, and 
run the application named Settings.  In the Package installation 
section of the General tab, set the on-the-fly option to either Yes 
or, if you don't mind being nagged, Ask me first (my preferred 
choice).  Note that you'll need to be connected to the Internet when you 
are using LaTeX.


If you prefer (or if you don't normally have an Internet connection 
available), you can use the Browse Packages application to install a 
bunch of needed packages at one time.


If this doesn't solve the problem, then let us know what fails when you 
try to install a package.


/Paul

Re: What has happened with Lyx V1.6.2-1

[Paul A. Rubin]

E. Kaplan wrote:
My guess is that there is some subtle interaction between your 
machine/software settings and the Lyx. I also have unexplained 
difficulties with 1.6.2:  it worked perfectly (altwininstaller complete) 
on 3 windows machines
(Vista, XP pro), but on a fourth machine it does not launch properly 
when I click on a Lyx file.  Instead, it opens WinEdt (my Latex editor). 
I tried to change the file associations for Lyx files, but it fails.  
The odd thing is that if I launch Lyx by itself,
and load a Lyx file into it, all works fine.  I have this problem only 
on one Windows machine.

On a kubuntu (8.10) machine I have no problems with 1.6.2.
I realize that this is useless information for you, but perhaps someone 
here will see what is going on

for either of us.



The Windows Registry is a rat's nest.  I've seen something like this 
happen once or twice.  My best guess is that multiple registry keys 
point to the document type, and the one you're fixing is not the one the 
system is using when you double-click an icon.


About all I can suggest is to (a) run a registry cleaning utility and 
(b) use an extension editing utility, rather than the menu built into 
Windows Explorer, to change the extension.  For the former, CCleaner is 
a wonderful bit of freeware that cleans out temporary files that have 
outlived their usefulness, and contains a registry editor.  For the 
latter, I can recommend WAssociate (also freeware).


HTH,
Paul

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Piero Faustini]

 If you wish, you can decode ERT in the collapsable buttons as Embedded Raw 
 Text. 

No, no, Evil Red TeX. It's Evil. It's Red. It's TeX. It is scaring and 
fashinating as some Red Army logo. +1 for keeping it.

Lyx install fails in MiKTex install

[Ian S. Worthington]

Hi 

Being a longtime user of IBM's now withdrawn BookMaster markup language, and
having been severly disappointed with the usability of DocBook, I'm quite
excited to have now discovered Lyx.

I'm having problems installing it on my Windows XP system though.  The Lyx
install spawns the MikTex install which runs fine, albeit slowly, up until: 
 
fndbmpm: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\MiKTeX\2.7\miktex\config\5c9c2effd97adbeacc8bf220bf73149c.fnd  
 
at which point it just stops.  
 
I've seen this has been reported a few times by other MikTex users but I can't
see any solution has ever been posted. 
 
Whilst I realise this is not a Lyx problem per se, any help, advice or
workarounds would be most welcome. 
 
Thanks. 
 
i 


ian 
... 

Ian S. Worthington, MBCS.

me: http://isw.me.uk/ 
photos: http://gallery.isw.me.uk/ 


Free 2GB online backups:
  https://mozy.com/?code=HJW4C8 (code gets you 256MB extra)

Web hosting and support from $2.99/month:
  www.cirtexhosting.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=463


Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, sed dulcius pro patria vivere, et
dulcissimus pro patria biber. Ergo, bibiamo pro salute patriae.

Re: What has happened with Lyx V1.6.2-1

[Thomas Steffen]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Robert Betz
robert.b...@newcastle.edu.au wrote:
 Basiscally things that did work on V1.6.1-1 now don't on V1.6.2-1.  For
 example with the Alt installer during install it cannot find the Miktex
 distribution and the path to it has to be manually set.  Once installed
 then when I load up files that have PDF graphics they are not rendered
 correctly on the screen — there is a lot of extra space around them.

I am having this very problem on Ubuntu Jaunty/amd64. I think it has
been pretty constant all through the 1.6 series, but I do not have it
on a Jaunty/i386 installation. I am not sure whether that is the
essential difference, or it is something related to ghostscript.

Regards,
Thomas

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Thomas Steffen]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller sp...@lyx.org wrote:
 Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
  The reference to embedded LaTeX within a document being written with LyX
  as Evil Red Text (ERT) has bothered me from the first time I saw it.

I agree, it is not a useful term.

 If you wish, you can decode ERT in the collapsable buttons as Embedded Raw
 Text.

That is a lot better, and it does convey the same idea that it should
only be used as a last resort. But while keeping the acronym may be
handy, it could make it more difficult to break the habit. Maybe we
should rename it to raw output, raw code, or even transparent raw
code.

Regards,
Thomas

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Uwe Stöhr]

I'm impressed that you persevered so long discussing about a name of a term.

Except of the abbreviation ERT as short name for the TeX code inset LyX consistently names it TeX 
code (in the tooltips, toolbar, documentation files) because that's what it is - code for the 
language TeX.


regards Uwe

Re: Lyx install fails in MiKTex install

[Uwe Stöhr]

Ian S. Worthington schrieb:


I'm having problems installing it on my Windows XP system though.  The Lyx
install spawns the MikTex install which runs fine, albeit slowly, up until: 
 
fndbmpm: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\MiKTeX\2.7\miktex\config\5c9c2effd97adbeacc8bf220bf73149c.fnd  
 
at which point it just stops.


What installer have you used?
This is nevertheless most probably a problem with a MiKTeX server. I would try to uninstall LyX 
completely, then also uninstall MiKTeX (the part that is already installed). Then install MiKTeX 
manually using the basic MiKTeX installer you find at miktex.org. Finally reinstall LyX using the 
complete version of the alternative installer.


I hope this way it works.

(The MiKTeX server is refreshed every week so at least it should work after 
easter.)

regards Uwe

Re: Ghostscript 8.63: Unrecoverable error

[Wolfgang Engelmann]

Am Thursday 09 April 2009 19:34:54 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
> Wolfgang Engelmann schrieb:
> > I am still getting
> >
> > GPL Ghostscript 8.64: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
> > dvipng warning: No GhostScript pngalpha output, cannot render raw
> > PostScript
>
> Try out to update or reinstall ImageMagick. When this doesn't help, I would
> report this as bug to the Ghostscript developers.
>
> regards Uwe

Thanks again,

 however, upgrading ImageMagick from 7:6.3.7.9dfsg1 to dfsg2-1
did not help. 
Do you happen to have an address of the Ghostscript developers?

I noticed texlive in Debian squeeze is still 2007
How could I update to 2008? I have a DANTE TeX collection containing TeXLive 
2008, it has an installer, but I don't know how well it goes along with the 
Debian way of installing
My hope is, that something in TeXLive 2008 might cure the Unrecoverable error

Wolfgang

-- 
-
Wolfgang Engelmann
Schlossgartenstrasse 22
D-72070 Tübingen
Tel 07071 68325

index in TOC

[Hubert Christiaen]

When I look at the help files, I see that the index is mentionned in the TOC 
seemingly without special instruction. I am using the minitoc package and the 
appendix contains the GNU licence text and the index. There is no separate 
minitoc for the appendix. But my index is not mentionned in the TOC. As it is 
generated by a simple instruction and is not a starred element, I do not see 
what command I must use to get it in the TOC. Somebody some experience?

Sincerely,
Hubert

-- 
Hubert Christiaen
Bloesemlaan 17
3360 Korbeek-Lo
Belgium   

Re: index in TOC

[Waluyo Adi Siswanto]

On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 16:44 +0800, Waluyo Adi Siswanto wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 10:30 +0200, Hubert Christiaen wrote:
> > When I look at the help files, I see that the index is mentionned in the 
> > TOC 
> > seemingly without special instruction. I am using the minitoc package and 
> > the 
> > appendix contains the GNU licence text and the index. There is no separate 
> > minitoc for the appendix. But my index is not mentionned in the TOC. As it 
> > is 
> > generated by a simple instruction and is not a starred element, I do not 
> > see 
> > what command I must use to get it in the TOC. Somebody some experience?
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Hubert
> > 
> I just write a simple command "intoc"
> from Documents > Settings, in document class dialog, Class options -
> Customs.
> 
> Regards
> WAS
> 
Ops sorry I ... think "idxtotoc", for bibliography similarly "bibtotoc"

WAS

Re: index in TOC

[Hubert Christiaen]

On zaterdag 11 april 2009, WAS wrote:
> I just write a simple command "intoc"
> from Documents > Settings, in document class dialog, Class options -
> Customs.
> Ops sorry I ... think "idxtotoc", for bibliography similarly "bibtotoc"
The idxtotoc does not seem to be sufficient.

Sincerely,
Hubert

-- 
Hubert Christiaen
Bloesemlaan 17
3360 Korbeek-Lo
Belgium   

similar typeface for monospaced and proportional?

[Jeremy C. Reed]

I am looking for some typeface that looks the same for both monospaced and 
proportional. I have a document with a mix of fixed width text that is to 
be lined up (verbatim environment). I'd prefer to not use tables to line 
up the content.

I want that font to look the same as the other variable-width fonts -- 
with the main difference just the spacing between the type. Currently 
there is a significant visible difference -- I am hoping it will be more 
similar.

Any suggestions for a typeface that looks very close to the same for both 
fixed width and variable width?

Or is there a way to tell TeX to use a proportional typeface but force it 
to use a fixed width so it will line up?

Currently, I am using
% for palatino font
\usepackage{mathpazo}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{t1enc}
\usepackage{microtype}
and verbatim environments.

The fonts used are:

name type  emb sub uni object ID
 - --- --- --- -
LRUUGQ+URWPalladioL-Roma Type 1yes yes no   6  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no   7  0
ARWHNO+CMSY10Type 1yes yes no  14  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  18  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  19  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  23  0
JAFOHT+URWPalladioL-Roma-Slant_167   Type 1yes yes no  54  0
UBBDOK+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1020 Type 1yes yes no  57  0
PHLRTI+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_988  Type 1yes yes no  60  0
RXKJGH+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_980  Type 1yes yes no  63  0
VVGSKL+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_996  Type 1yes yes no  66  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no  71  0
UYLLUF+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1004 Type 1yes yes no  74  0
MXTISL+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_992  Type 1yes yes no  77  0
OSCZAI+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1008 Type 1yes yes no  89  0
DZEPRE+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1012 Type 1yes yes no  92  0
PDCOGY+URWPalladioL-Bold Type 1yes yes no  98  0
QBSUBD+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_1016 Type 1yes yes no 104  0
EIJDSS+URWPalladioL-Roma-Extend_984  Type 1yes yes no 111  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no 112  0
[none]   Type 3yes no  no 166  0
ORRXDO+URWPalladioL-Ital Type 1yes yes no1423  0
AXBKIS+URWPalladioL-Ital-Extend_980  Type 1yes yes no1426  0

(I don't know what "none" is.)

Re: Installation Problems

[Paul A. Rubin]

Richard Heck wrote:

Neither this installer, nor any other, installs absolutely every LaTeX 
file someone might want to use with LyX. It's the job of your LaTeX 
installation to deal with that. In your case, that's apparently MikTeX, 
and my understanding was that it  should install the LaTeX files you 
need on the fly. If it's not doing so, I'd investigate it.




Richard's correct.  Go to your Start menu, in the MiKTeX 2.7 group, and 
run the application named "Settings".  In the "Package installation" 
section of the "General" tab, set the on-the-fly option to either "Yes" 
or, if you don't mind being nagged, "Ask me first" (my preferred 
choice).  Note that you'll need to be connected to the Internet when you 
are using LaTeX.


If you prefer (or if you don't normally have an Internet connection 
available), you can use the "Browse Packages" application to install a 
bunch of needed packages at one time.


If this doesn't solve the problem, then let us know what fails when you 
try to install a package.


/Paul

Re: What has happened with Lyx V1.6.2-1

[Paul A. Rubin]

E. Kaplan wrote:
My guess is that there is some subtle interaction between your 
machine/software settings and the Lyx. I also have unexplained 
difficulties with 1.6.2:  it worked perfectly (altwininstaller complete) 
on 3 windows machines
(Vista, XP pro), but on a fourth machine it does not launch properly 
when I click on a Lyx file.  Instead, it opens WinEdt (my Latex editor). 
I tried to change the file associations for Lyx files, but it fails.  
The odd thing is that if I launch Lyx by itself,
and load a Lyx file into it, all works fine.  I have this problem only 
on one Windows machine.

On a kubuntu (8.10) machine I have no problems with 1.6.2.
I realize that this is useless information for you, but perhaps someone 
here will see what is going on

for either of us.



The Windows Registry is a rat's nest.  I've seen something like this 
happen once or twice.  My best guess is that multiple registry keys 
point to the document type, and the one you're fixing is not the one the 
system is using when you double-click an icon.


About all I can suggest is to (a) run a registry cleaning utility and 
(b) use an extension editing utility, rather than the menu built into 
Windows Explorer, to change the extension.  For the former, CCleaner is 
a wonderful bit of freeware that cleans out temporary files that have 
outlived their usefulness, and contains a registry editor.  For the 
latter, I can recommend WAssociate (also freeware).


HTH,
Paul

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Piero Faustini]

> If you wish, you can decode "ERT" in the collapsable buttons as "Embedded Raw 
> Text". 

No, no, "Evil Red TeX". It's Evil. It's Red. It's TeX. It is scaring and 
fashinating as some Red Army logo. +1 for keeping it.

Lyx install fails in MiKTex install

[Ian S. Worthington]

Hi 

Being a longtime user of IBM's now withdrawn BookMaster markup language, and
having been severly disappointed with the usability of DocBook, I'm quite
excited to have now discovered Lyx.

I'm having problems installing it on my Windows XP system though.  The Lyx
install spawns the MikTex install which runs fine, albeit slowly, up until: 
 
fndbmpm: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\MiKTeX\2.7\miktex\config\5c9c2effd97adbeacc8bf220bf73149c.fnd  
 
at which point it just stops.  
 
I've seen this has been reported a few times by other MikTex users but I can't
see any solution has ever been posted. 
 
Whilst I realise this is not a Lyx problem per se, any help, advice or
workarounds would be most welcome. 
 
Thanks. 
 
i 


ian 
... 

Ian S. Worthington, MBCS.

me: http://isw.me.uk/ 
photos: http://gallery.isw.me.uk/ 


Free 2GB online backups:
  https://mozy.com/?code=HJW4C8 (code gets you 256MB extra)

Web hosting and support from $2.99/month:
  www.cirtexhosting.com/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=463


Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, sed dulcius pro patria vivere, et
dulcissimus pro patria biber. Ergo, bibiamo pro salute patriae.

Re: What has happened with Lyx V1.6.2-1

[Thomas Steffen]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Robert Betz
 wrote:
> Basiscally things that did work on V1.6.1-1 now don't on V1.6.2-1.  For
> example with the Alt installer during install it cannot find the Miktex
> distribution and the path to it has to be manually set.  Once installed
> then when I load up files that have PDF graphics they are not rendered
> correctly on the screen — there is a lot of extra space around them.

I am having this very problem on Ubuntu Jaunty/amd64. I think it has
been pretty constant all through the 1.6 series, but I do not have it
on a Jaunty/i386 installation. I am not sure whether that is the
essential difference, or it is something related to ghostscript.

Regards,
Thomas

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Thomas Steffen]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller  wrote:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> > The reference to embedded LaTeX within a document being written with LyX
>> > as "Evil Red Text (ERT)" has bothered me from the first time I saw it.

I agree, it is not a useful term.

> If you wish, you can decode "ERT" in the collapsable buttons as "Embedded Raw
> Text".

That is a lot better, and it does convey the same idea that it should
only be used as a last resort. But while keeping the acronym may be
handy, it could make it more difficult to break the habit. Maybe we
should rename it to "raw output", "raw code", or even "transparent raw
code".

Regards,
Thomas

Re: Terminology Change Request for Next Release

[Uwe Stöhr]

I'm impressed that you persevered so long discussing about a name of a term.

Except of the abbreviation "ERT" as short name for the TeX code inset LyX consistently names it "TeX 
code" (in the tooltips, toolbar, documentation files) because that's what it is - code for the 
language TeX.


regards Uwe

Re: Lyx install fails in MiKTex install

[Uwe Stöhr]

Ian S. Worthington schrieb:


I'm having problems installing it on my Windows XP system though.  The Lyx
install spawns the MikTex install which runs fine, albeit slowly, up until: 
 
fndbmpm: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\MiKTeX\2.7\miktex\config\5c9c2effd97adbeacc8bf220bf73149c.fnd  
 
at which point it just stops.


What installer have you used?
This is nevertheless most probably a problem with a MiKTeX server. I would try to uninstall LyX 
completely, then also uninstall MiKTeX (the part that is already installed). Then install MiKTeX 
manually using the basic MiKTeX installer you find at miktex.org. Finally reinstall LyX using the 
complete version of the alternative installer.


I hope this way it works.

(The MiKTeX server is refreshed every week so at least it should work after 
easter.)

regards Uwe