On 30/01/2024 12:50, David Wright wrote:
On 30/01/2024 02:51, David Wright wrote:
. Press HOME,
. Type any letter that makes a "wrong" command name (eg aokular),
. Press END,
[...]
However, using my "wrong" command method, Tab Tab lists are complete
all the way down the path. You can then
On Tue 30 Jan 2024 at 10:34:21 (+0700), Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 30/01/2024 02:51, David Wright wrote:
> > . Press HOME,
> > . Type any letter that makes a "wrong" command name (eg aokular),
> > . Press END,
>
> The escape "Esc /" workaround has been posted in this thread already.
Yes, I believe
On 30/01/2024 02:51, David Wright wrote:
. Press HOME,
. Type any letter that makes a "wrong" command name (eg aokular),
. Press END,
The escape "Esc /" workaround has been posted in this thread already. It
uses built-in readline path completion instead of BASH programmable
completion. It
On 1/29/24 20:59, Greg Wooledge wrote:
complete -r isn't intended as a workaround. It's intended as a diagnostic
step.
Seeing the problem go away when completion goes away means that the
problem is *in* the completion. Thus, he knows which package to file
a bug report against.
Yes, I
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 01:51:19PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 29 Jan 2024 at 19:31:50 (+0100), Michael Kiermaier wrote:
> > Thank you for your responses! After 'complete -r' the problem
> > disappears. I should add that I never touched the autocomplete settings.
>
> No, but you lose your
On Mon 29 Jan 2024 at 19:31:50 (+0100), Michael Kiermaier wrote:
> On 1/29/24 18:59, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:05:24AM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> > > On 29/01/2024 19:40, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > Let me test that as well
> > > [...]
> > > > unicorn:/tmp$ xyz dir\
On 1/29/24 18:59, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:05:24AM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 29/01/2024 19:40, Greg Wooledge wrote:
Let me test that as well
[...]
unicorn:/tmp$ xyz dir\ with\ blanks/dir2/file
"okular" is important here. Only limited set of file name suffixes
On Mon 29 Jan 2024 at 12:59:39 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:05:24AM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> > On 29/01/2024 19:40, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > Let me test that as well
> > [...]
> > > unicorn:/tmp$ xyz dir\ with\ blanks/dir2/file
> >
> > "okular" is important
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:05:24AM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 19:40, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Let me test that as well
> [...]
> > unicorn:/tmp$ xyz dir\ with\ blanks/dir2/file
>
> "okular" is important here. Only limited set of file name suffixes are
> allowed for some
On 29/01/2024 19:40, Greg Wooledge wrote:
Let me test that as well
[...]
unicorn:/tmp$ xyz dir\ with\ blanks/dir2/file
"okular" is important here. Only limited set of file name suffixes are
allowed for some commands. You do not need to have okular installed,
completion rules are part
On Mon 29 Jan 2024 at 07:40:13 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:32:18AM +0100, Michael Kiermaier wrote:
> > I would like to run okular opening the pdf file
> > ~/dir1\ with\ blanks/dir2/file.pdf
> > via command line. In konsole I type
> > okular ~/dir1\ with\
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:32:18AM +0100, Michael Kiermaier wrote:
> I would like to run okular opening the pdf file
> ~/dir1\ with\ blanks/dir2/file.pdf
> via command line. In konsole I type
> okular ~/dir1\ with\ blanks/
> and hit the tab key twice for autocomplete. But I won't get
a blank like dir1 makes the problem disappear. Also, note that
adding a blank to dir2 is not a problem.
(2) Automatic filtering of autocompletion candidates.
Starting the command with 'konsole' and then hitting tab will only
complete to pdf files. When I do the same with 'ls' instead of 'okular
On 2023-09-17, Greg Marks wrote:
>
> I am trying to use Ghostscript to resize PDF files to letter page size,
> but on certain files the output is not the correct size. As an example:
>
>$wget https://gmarks.org/abrams_anh_pardo.pdf
>
>$pdfinfo abrams_anh_pardo.pdf=
I am trying to use Ghostscript to resize PDF files to letter page size,
but on certain files the output is not the correct size. As an example:
$wget https://gmarks.org/abrams_anh_pardo.pdf
$pdfinfo abrams_anh_pardo.pdf
...
Page size: 539 x 737 pts
...
$gs -o
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:37:54 -0500
David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 22 Jun 2019 at 22:31:48 (-0400), Celejar wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 20:53:52 -0500 David Wright
> > wrote:
> > > But what eliminates it for me as a general viewer is the lack of key-
> > > binding configuration file. Quoting
On Sat 22 Jun 2019 at 22:31:48 (-0400), Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 20:53:52 -0500 David Wright
> wrote:
> > But what eliminates it for me as a general viewer is the lack of key-
> > binding configuration file. Quoting Archwiki,
> > "Navigation within a document works with standard
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 20:53:52 -0500
David Wright wrote:
...
> But what eliminates it for me as a general viewer is the lack of key-
> binding configuration file. Quoting Archwiki,
> "Navigation within a document works with standard keyboard shortcuts
>and mouse interaction. For example, B
On Sat 15 Jun 2019 at 07:51:22 (-), Curt wrote:
> On 2019-06-15, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > On 14.06.19 10:51, Celejar wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:22 +1000 Erik Christiansen
> >> wrote:
> >> > I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but
ng technically invalid PDFs. I've had
> some trouble viewing PDFs exported by LibreCAD in Evince, and a few
> other funnies that I can't remember now.
>
> Adobe Reader does seem a bit better at dealing with dodgy files, and of
> course it deals with the extended PDFs e.g. editable form
Quoting franiortiz hotmail (2019-06-17 11:33:30)
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:11:17PM -0700, Fred wrote:
>> On 06/15/2019 08:40 AM, k. jantzen wrote:
>>>On 6/13/19 4:29 PM, k. jantzen wrote:
in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
xpdf or documentviewer.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:11:17PM -0700, Fred wrote:
> On 06/15/2019 08:40 AM, k. jantzen wrote:
> >On 6/13/19 4:29 PM, k. jantzen wrote:
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
> >>or documentviewer.
> >>
> >>But once in a while I get a pdf
On 2019-06-17, Sarunas Burdulis wrote:
>
>..or install Adobe Reader 9.5.5, which is still available on Adobe FTP
>
> server. Very rarely needed here, but it works.
>
I wonder about the advisability of running software that hasn't received
security updates since 2013.
On 6/15/19 3:11 PM, Fred wrote:
> On 06/15/2019 08:40 AM, k. jantzen wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> thanks a lot for this interesting discussion.
>>
>> As stated before I used documentviewer and xpdf.
>>
>> As a consequence of this discussion I tried evince and mupdf.
>> They did not solve the problem.
>>
On 16/06/19, Gary Dale (g...@extremeground.com) wrote:
> On 2019-06-15 12:43 p.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > We agree it is uncommon to use both (you go further and claim it is even
> > common to use neither), and we agree it is common to use either one or
> > the other (you go further and
Quoting Steve Litt (2019-06-16 09:04:14)
[ stuff posted off list ]
Please don't move the conversation off the list.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep
On 2019-06-15 12:43 p.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 17:46:50)
On 2019-06-15 10:56 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 16:31:28)
On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used
On 06/15/2019 08:40 AM, k. jantzen wrote:
On 6/13/19 4:29 PM, k. jantzen wrote:
Hello,
in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
xpdf or documentviewer.
But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
have to go to Windows to open it.
What
Quoting k. jantzen (2019-06-15 17:40:24)
> On 6/13/19 4:29 PM, k. jantzen wrote:
> > in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
> > xpdf or documentviewer.
> >
> > But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then
> > I have to go to Windows to open it.
Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 17:46:50)
> On 2019-06-15 10:56 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 16:31:28)
>>> On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in
an otherwise non-KDE environment.
On 15/06/19, Curt (cu...@free.fr) wrote:
> I use mupdf from time to time, but as it doesn't refresh automagically like
> Evince when I run 'pdflatex' on an open pdf file whose tex source I've
> modified, I prefer the latter.
Depending on your editor, it should be simple to sync the PDF to changes
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 05:40:24PM +0200, k. jantzen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thanks a lot for this interesting discussion.
>
> As stated before I used documentviewer and xpdf.
>
> As a consequence of this discussion I tried evince and mupdf.
> They did not solve the problem.
You might also try gv
On 6/13/19 4:29 PM, k. jantzen wrote:
Hello,
in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
or documentviewer.
But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
have to go to Windows to open it.
What is so spectacular about these files that
On 2019-06-15 10:56 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 16:31:28)
On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in an
otherwise non-KDE environment.
Far better than (e.g. virtualized) Windows with Adobe
Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 16:31:28)
> On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in an
>> otherwise non-KDE environment.
>>
>> Far better than (e.g. virtualized) Windows with Adobe Reader, though
>> :-)
>
> However few
On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[ quotes reordered by time - please consider not top-posting, Hans ]
Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 05:35:58)
On 2019-06-13 12:10 p.m., Joe wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
in general I do not have a
luck with okular than with any of the other
options for problematic pdf files.
On 15.06.19 07:51, Curt wrote:
> curty@einstein:~$ mupdf
> usage: mupdf [options] file.pdf [page]
> -p -password
> -r -resolution
> -A -set anti-aliasing quality in bits (0=off, 8=best)
> -C -RRGGBB (tint color in hexadecimal syntax)
> -W -
Quoting Curt (2019-06-15 09:51:22)
> On 2019-06-15, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > On 14.06.19 10:51, Celejar wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:22 +1000
> >> Erik Christiansen wrote:
> >> > I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but it's very nift
On 2019-06-15, Curt wrote:
> On 2019-06-15, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>> On 14.06.19 10:51, Celejar wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:22 +1000
>>> Erik Christiansen wrote:
>>> > I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but it's very nifty to have on
>
On 2019-06-15, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 14.06.19 10:51, Celejar wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:22 +1000
>> Erik Christiansen wrote:
>> > I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but it's very nifty to have on
>> > hand.
>>
>> I actually l
[ quotes reordered by time - please consider not top-posting, Hans ]
Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 05:35:58)
> On 2019-06-13 12:10 p.m., Joe wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
xpdf
On 14.06.19 10:51, Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:22 +1000
> Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but it's very nifty to have on
> > hand.
>
> I actually love mupdf, and I use it as my main pdf reader. It's just so
>
On 2019-06-13 12:10 p.m., Joe wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:28:10 +0200
Hans wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?
Best
Hans
Hello,
in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
xpdf or documentviewer.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:22 +1000
Erik Christiansen wrote:
...
> I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but it's very nifty to have on
> hand.
I actually love mupdf, and I use it as my main pdf reader. It's just so
lightweight and easy to use for basic pdf reading.
Celejar
viewers.
> >
> >> Is there another program that would read such a file?
> >
> > There are many PDF viewers in Debian. Probably best way to sift through
> > them is to install the package apt-xapian-index and run these:
> >
> > axi-cache search pdf v
Probably best way to sift through
> them is to install the package apt-xapian-index and run these:
>
> axi-cache search pdf viewer
> axi-cache more
>
>
> When your interest is in what PDF files the applications can render,
> then you need not try them all b
ound a bad table definition on true type definition, trying to
continue...
after an initial:
Error: PDF file is damaged - attempting to reconstruct xref table...
I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but it's very nifty to have on
hand.
Erik
che search pdf viewer
axi-cache more
When your interest is in what PDF files the applications can render,
then you need not try them all but can check which underlying PDF
rendering library they use which are far more limited.
Evince (a.k.a. "documentviewer"), Xpdf, Okular, Atril, Qpd
...
>> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
>> or documentviewer.
>>
>> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
>> have to go to Windows to open it.
>>
>> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by the
>>
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:28:10 +0200
Hans wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
> Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?
>
> Best
>
> Hans
> > Hello,
> >
> > in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
> > xpdf or documentviewer.
> >
> > But
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?
Best
Hans
> Hello,
>
> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
> or documentviewer.
>
> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
> have
Hello,
in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
or documentviewer.
But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
have to go to Windows to open it.
What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by the
above
On 2018-09-26 2:45 p.m., Gary Dale wrote:
For the last few days, some Scribus documents I work with have stopped
accepting PDF files within image frames. Prior to this, they would
display a preview. Now new image frames that I create show just the
file name, but some older frames within
On 2018-09-26 19:45, Gary Dale wrote:
For the last few days, some Scribus documents I work with have stopped
accepting PDF files within image frames. Prior to this, they would
display a preview. Now new image frames that I create show just the
file name, but some older frames within the document
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:45:18PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
> For the last few days, some Scribus documents I work with have stopped
> accepting PDF files within image frames. Prior to this, they would display a
> preview. Now new image frames that I create show just the file name, but
>
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:01 AM Flo wrote:
>
> I recompiled the versions 9.24, 9.23 and 9.22:
> It changed from 9.22 to 9.23 . Does anyone has an idea what changed here
> such that the size of the pdf files are bigger?
>
> Flo.
I do not know much about ghostscr
I recompiled the versions 9.24, 9.23 and 9.22:
It changed from 9.22 to 9.23 . Does anyone has an idea what changed here
such that the size of the pdf files are bigger?
Flo.
On 09/28/18 23:54, Flo wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am using ghostscript to make pdf files smaller.
>
> T
Dear All,
I am using ghostscript to make pdf files smaller.
Three days ago I upgraded my system and now I am running 9.25 . However
the size of the pdf files increased significantly.
I guess a default value changed. Does anyone know about it. I'd like to
have it the way as it worked before
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
> For the last few days, some Scribus documents I work with have stopped
> accepting PDF files within image frames. Prior to this, they would display a
> preview. Now new image frames that I create show just the file name, but
> some
For the last few days, some Scribus documents I work with have stopped
accepting PDF files within image frames. Prior to this, they would
display a preview. Now new image frames that I create show just the file
name, but some older frames within the document still show the preview.
When I
For the last few days, some Scribus documents I work with have stopped
accepting PDF files within image frames. Prior to this, they would
display a preview. Now new image frames that I create show just the file
name, but some older frames within the document still show the preview.
When I
There's a newer package gimagereader — graphical GTK+ front-end to tesseract-ocr
https://packages.debian.org/unstable/main/gimagereader .
Can that help?
--
Regards,
jvp.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On 04/11/14 12:17, Gary Roach wrote:
On 11/01/2014 06:35 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 31/10/14 11:47, Gary Roach wrote:
Hi all,
Problem: I am working on an archiving project and wish to archive
documents to searchable pdf files but can't seem to figure out how to
proof read and correct
On 11/01/2014 06:35 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 31/10/14 11:47, Gary Roach wrote:
Hi all,
Problem: I am working on an archiving project and wish to archive
documents to searchable pdf files but can't seem to figure out how to
proof read and correct the text overlay. Any suggestions.
I'm
There's a open source tool named OCRmyPDF which claims to do what you're trying
to do: see https://github.com/fritz-hh/OCRmyPDF
As far as I understand, it makes use of standard GNU/Linux software and produces
a searchable pdf file (which implies in my understanding that the text is
extractable). I
On 10/31/2014 04:15 PM, Doug wrote:
On 10/31/2014 06:31 PM, Gary Roach wrote:
On 10/30/2014 05:47 PM, Gary Roach wrote:
Hi all,
This is part of a medium sized, low budget archiving project that
will process serveral thousand documents, all done by low tech
volunteers. So I really need
On 31/10/14 11:47, Gary Roach wrote:
Hi all,
Problem: I am working on an archiving project and wish to archive
documents to searchable pdf files but can't seem to figure out how to
proof read and correct the text overlay. Any suggestions.
I'm not sure what you mean by text *overlay
On 10/30/2014 05:47 PM, Gary Roach wrote:
Hi all,
Problem:
I am working on an archiving project and wish to archive documents
to searchable pdf files but can't seem to figure out how to proof read
and correct the text overlay. Any suggestions.
Tesseract seems to do a really great job
On 10/31/2014 06:31 PM, Gary Roach wrote:
On 10/30/2014 05:47 PM, Gary Roach wrote:
Hi all,
This is part of a medium sized, low budget archiving project that will process
serveral thousand documents, all done by low tech volunteers. So I really need
methods that are straight forward or can
Hi all,
Problem:
I am working on an archiving project and wish to archive documents to
searchable pdf files but can't seem to figure out how to proof read and
correct the text overlay. Any suggestions.
System:
Debian Wheezy
Intel i5-750 processor
HP Officejet Pro
On 10/30/2014 08:47 PM, Gary Roach wrote:
Hi all,
Problem:
I am working on an archiving project and wish to archive documents to
searchable pdf files but can't seem to figure out how to proof read and correct
the text overlay. Any suggestions.
System:
Debian Wheezy
Intel i5
On 30/10/14 08:47 PM, Gary Roach wrote:
Hi all,
Problem:
I am working on an archiving project and wish to archive documents
to searchable pdf files but can't seem to figure out how to proof read
and correct the text overlay. Any suggestions.
System:
Debian Wheezy
Intel i5-750
op 27-05-14 11:47, Paul van der Vlis schreef:
op 26-05-14 22:09, Jan van Gemert schreef:
op 26-05-14 18:25, Paul van der Vlis schreef:
op 26-05-14 15:11, Matijs van Zuijlen schreef:
Ik gebruik meestal Xournal, dat werkt goed. De opties van Evince zijn vrij
beperkt vergeleken met wat PDF
Hallo,
Hebben jullie ervaring met een programma wat notities kan toevoegen aan
PDF-files, en waarmee je stukken kunt markeren?
Het moet kunnen draaien op Debian stable. En uiteraard het liefst open
source zijn.
Ik denk aan Xournal, Mendely of Scribus.
Een nieuwe versie van Evince zou ook een
, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Hallo,
Hebben jullie ervaring met een programma wat notities kan toevoegen aan
PDF-files, en waarmee je stukken kunt markeren?
Het moet kunnen draaien op Debian stable. En uiteraard het liefst open
source zijn.
Ik denk aan Xournal, Mendely of Scribus.
Een nieuwe
,
Hebben jullie ervaring met een programma wat notities kan toevoegen aan
PDF-files, en waarmee je stukken kunt markeren?
Het moet kunnen draaien op Debian stable. En uiteraard het liefst open
source zijn.
Ik denk aan Xournal, Mendely of Scribus.
Een nieuwe versie van Evince zou ook een optie
op 26-05-14 15:11, Matijs van Zuijlen schreef:
Ik gebruik meestal Xournal, dat werkt goed. De opties van Evince zijn vrij
beperkt vergeleken met wat PDF toestaat. Aan de andere kant heeft Evince het
voordeel dat notities in de PDF zelf opgeslagen worden en dus door andere
PDF-viewers bekeken
op 26-05-14 18:25, Paul van der Vlis schreef:
op 26-05-14 15:11, Matijs van Zuijlen schreef:
Ik gebruik meestal Xournal, dat werkt goed. De opties van Evince zijn vrij
beperkt vergeleken met wat PDF toestaat. Aan de andere kant heeft Evince het
voordeel dat notities in de PDF zelf opgeslagen
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:18:11 +0100
Claudius Hubig nfs_2...@chubig.net wrote:
Hello richard,
richard richard.b...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
You end up filling in a form sending it off , only to get an answer the form
was blank.
Always worth checking a file exported as a pdf, is what you think
on 14 Jan 2012 15:39:44 -0500
John A. Sullivan III jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 20:10 +, richard wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:48:43 + (UTC)
Curt cu...@free.fr wrote:
On 2012-01-14, Siard shiems...@kpnplanet.nl wrote:
Acroread should be
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:18:11 +0100
Claudius Hubig nfs_2...@chubig.net wrote:
Hello richard,
richard richard.b...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
You end up filling in a form sending it off , only to get an answer the
form
was blank.
Always worth checking a file exported as a pdf, is what you
Weaver wrote at 2012-01-15 05:44 -0600:
You can scan it back in at your end and attach it.
Or fill it out, print it to cups-pdf, then attach the resulting PDF.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
richard richard.b...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:18:11 +0100
Claudius Hubig nfs_2...@chubig.net wrote:
Hello richard,
richard richard.b...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
You end up filling in a form sending it off , only to get an answer the form
was blank.
Always worth
Curt:
Siard:
Curt:
Siard:
Acroread should be able to do it, it's in the non-free
repository.
It is?
In Wheezy:
$ apt-cache policy acroread
acroread:
Installed: 9.4.6-0.1
...
http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ wheezy/non-free i386 Packages
...
When
Jude DaShiell wrote:
can acroread and acroread-plugins work in a command line environment
or is this strictly gui?
Not sure what you want. You can do a 'acroread filename.pdf', but
of course you will need X for a PDF viewer.
There are a few things you can do on the command line using acroread,
Weaver wea...@riseup.net writes:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:18:11 +0100
Claudius Hubig nfs_2...@chubig.net wrote:
Hello richard,
richard richard.b...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
You end up filling in a form sending it off , only to get an answer the
form
was blank.
Always worth checking a file
John A. Sullivan III wrote:
This is a real hole in the Linux desktop environment.
I disagree. PDFs are not _meant_ to be edited. Even Adobe Acrobat has
very limited options to edit a PDF. There are third party plugins for
Acrobat that can do some more editing, but it's still rather limited.
--
Siard wrote:
John A. Sullivan III wrote:
This is a real hole in the Linux desktop environment.
I disagree. PDFs are not _meant_ to be edited. Even Adobe Acrobat has
very limited options to edit a PDF. There are third party plugins for
Acrobat that can do some more editing, but it's still
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 18:50 +0100, Siard wrote:
John A. Sullivan III wrote:
This is a real hole in the Linux desktop environment.
I disagree. PDFs are not _meant_ to be edited. Even Adobe Acrobat has
very limited options to edit a PDF. There are third party plugins for
Acrobat that can do
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 12:01 -0600, hvw59601 wrote:
Siard wrote:
John A. Sullivan III wrote:
This is a real hole in the Linux desktop environment.
I disagree. PDFs are not _meant_ to be edited. Even Adobe Acrobat has
very limited options to edit a PDF. There are third party plugins for
On 01/13/2012 01:50 PM, richard wrote:
Greetings,
Is there any free app which can edit pdf files.
Evince looks like it does it, you can edit, send it as an attachment and read
it with another copy of evince and you can see the alterations.
Open it on a poxy winblos machine with acrobat
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:50:21 +, richard wrote:
Is there any free app which can edit pdf files.
(...)
PDFedit, but don't expect the same results/options/level of management
that you would have with Acrobat Professional. When it comes to PDF
edition software Adobe is nowadays the king
Hugo writes:
and http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/index.html ?
Filling in blanks in forms created for the purpose is not editing to me
(though it is still misuse of the PDF format).
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
hvw59601 wrote:
Siard wrote:
John A. Sullivan III wrote:
This is a real hole in the Linux desktop environment.
I disagree. PDFs are not _meant_ to be edited. Even Adobe Acrobat
has very limited options to edit a PDF. There are third party
plugins for Acrobat that can do some more
Siard wrote:
hvw59601 wrote:
Siard wrote:
John A. Sullivan III wrote:
This is a real hole in the Linux desktop environment.
I disagree. PDFs are not _meant_ to be edited. Even Adobe Acrobat
has very limited options to edit a PDF. There are third party
plugins for Acrobat that can do some
hvw59601:
Siard wrote:
hvw59601 wrote:
and www.irs.gov/formspubs/index.html ?
Those are PDFs with forms. On second thought, that's probably what
OP meant. But it wasn't understood as such by the other posters
either.
And I also misinterpreted OP's question. Sorry.
?? You're the
On 2012-01-14, Siard shiems...@kpnplanet.nl wrote:
Acroread should be able to do it, it's in the non-free repository.
It is?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 20:44 +0100, Siard wrote:
hvw59601:
Siard wrote:
hvw59601 wrote:
and www.irs.gov/formspubs/index.html ?
Those are PDFs with forms. On second thought, that's probably what
OP meant. But it wasn't understood as such by the other posters
either.
And I
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:44:14 +0100
Siard shiems...@kpnplanet.nl wrote:
hvw59601:
Siard wrote:
hvw59601 wrote:
and www.irs.gov/formspubs/index.html ?
Those are PDFs with forms. On second thought, that's probably what
OP meant. But it wasn't understood as such by the other
1 - 100 of 317 matches
Mail list logo
