After some more tests, I can report that the problem seems to be with gv
and not with the various methods of generating pdf output in landscape
format.
The simplest method does work for any other viewer I've tried apart from
gv:
\documentclass[a4paper,landscape]{slides}
latex
dvips -t landscape
Thanks for the quick response.
the best thing to do is "fink remove pdftex"
That didn't work, but "fink purge pdftex" did.
followed by "fink reinstall
tetex-base", which will hopefully fix it.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to make a difference.
I've got an older version of tetex installed
Thanks for your patience, I'm still getting all of the kinks worked out of
the new tetex.
The new tetex-base package installs a file /sw/share/doc/tetex-base/README.fink
which are the release notes Jean-Francois was referring to.
The pdflatex business will be smoother in the next version. For no
Having just installed and built tetex-2.0-5, I am having the same
problem reported earlier of not having a pdflatex command (although
pdftex -progname pdflatex does work, modulo other problems).
Following JF Merten's instructions, I tried:
do first a
dpkg -c /sw/fink/debs/tetex-base_2.0-5_darwi
Ok, I did the test on the mac and I confirm that using the geometry
package works for me, but I also seem to have problems with fink's gv.
Both the .ps and the .pdf files I get don't show up correctly in gv.
However they are indeed in landscape format. I can visualise the pdf
correctly using xpdf,
Hi,
I can not test it on my mac right now, but I just verified that the
solution I suggested works with tetex on a digital unix machine...
It seems to work at least with the article, slides and seminar document
classes.
What I do is the following. I have in the preamble just
\documentclass{art
Vivien Mary Kendon wrote:
[]
Your method does not work for me. If I replace my preamble with yours and
follow your recipe I get a couple of latex errors (it doesn't like the
a4paper option and mutters about magnification), and end up with a pdf
Yes, this is where I was too lazy and copied from
[Two replies in one here: Stefano see below]
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Martin Costabel wrote:
> On lundi, fév 17, 2003, at 14:22 Europe/Paris, Vivien Mary Kendon wrote:
>
> > This probably isn't a problem with the fink side of the tetex
> > distribution, but since we are discussing it, I thought I'd
A way of getting the pdf in landscape format is to use the "geometry"
package in latex with the landscape option, i.e.
\usepackage[a4paper,landscape]{geometry}
Then use your same commands to produce the file Land.ps and then just
ps2pdf Land.ps. This should give Land.pdf in landscape format.
St
On lundi, fév 17, 2003, at 14:22 Europe/Paris, Vivien Mary Kendon wrote:
This probably isn't a problem with the fink side of the tetex
distribution, but since we are discussing it, I thought I'd try asking
anyway. I can get perfectly good landscape ps output from my latex
document, but I can't g
This probably isn't a problem with the fink side of the tetex
distribution, but since we are discussing it, I thought I'd try asking
anyway. I can get perfectly good landscape ps output from my latex
document, but I can't get landscape pdf output from it.
I'm on all the latest 2.0-5 tetex, and gh
On 17/02/2003 0:15, Ettore Aldrovandi wrote:
> > There are almost 100 many more commands in GW text than in fink
> > pure tetex.
>
> Several parts are provided by Fink as separate packages, e.g.
> latex2html, texpower, ifmslide, and others. Moreover, some commands
> in GW's distribution don't work
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:23:28PM +0100, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> The situation is sad :-(
> Ther are almost 100 many more commands in GW text than in fink pure tetex.
Several parts are provided by Fink as separate packages, e.g.
latex2html, texpower, ifmslide, and others. Moreover, some
comman
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:59:09AM -0500, David R. Morrison wrote:
> I would appreciate receiving testing reports about tetex-texmf-2.0-3 (which
> has been in the unstable tree for a while), and tetex-2.0-5/tetex-base-2.0-5
> (a new revision was just added to the unstable tree moments ago).
>
>
Enrico Franconi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another possibility could be to package the TeXLive distribution itself, but
> I have no idea of how much more effort it should be put on it wrt tetex.
> I got the following message:
>
> On 16/02/2003 18:04, JF Mertens wrote:
> > (Shouldn't be that har
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:31:41 +0100
jfm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, Feb 16, 2003, at 04:20 Europe/Brussels, Dan Sommers wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:49:46 -0500
> > "David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> Note to self: add "alias pdflatex='pdftex -progname pd
On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 08:23 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
The following are the (many more) commands which are in GW tex but not
in
fink tetex:
Lots of those things are in other fink packages. For example t1binary,
t1ascii, etc are in the "t1utils" package.
GW likes to spread anti
> As it happens, I just ran across a difference ... fink's tetex doesn't
> have the command "lacheck" for checking latex syntax.
The situation is sad :-(
Ther are almost 100 many more commands in GW text than in fink pure tetex.
The question is: how hard would it be to make a fink package out of t
Is it possible for some of you who have already installed the new tetex 2 to
send me the list of binaries which have been installed:
dpkg -L tetex | grep /sw/bin/
dpkg -L tetex-texmf | grep /sw/bin/
(even though I believe that the latter shouldn't return anything)
I can then post the list of dif
On Sunday, Feb 16, 2003, at 04:20 Europe/Brussels, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:49:46 -0500
"David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note to self: add "alias pdflatex='pdftex -progname pdflatex'" to
You shouldn't need this either: there is a pdflatex command in
tetex-ba
Enrico Franconi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to know more about the difference between the 'pure' fink
> tetex distribution and the 'mixed' GW tex distribuiton. I understand
> that GW distributes the tetex texmf tree (and so this coincides with
> fink's one) and the TeXLive binaries (and
I'd like to know more about the difference between the 'pure' fink
tetex distribution and the 'mixed' GW tex distribuiton. I understand
that GW distributes the tetex texmf tree (and so this coincides with
fink's one) and the TeXLive binaries (and here there should be the
difference). Now the questi
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:49:46 -0500
"David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note to self: add "alias pdflatex='pdftex -progname pdflatex'" to
>
> You shouldn't need this either: there is a pdflatex command in tetex-base-2.0-5
Not mine. :-?
$ echo $PATH
/Users/dan/bin:/Users
> Note to self: add "alias pdflatex='pdftex -progname pdflatex'" to
You shouldn't need this either: there is a pdflatex command in tetex-base-2.0-5
-- Dave
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://think
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:16:41 -0500
"David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dan. pdftex is now actually included in tetex, so you don't
> need to install the (obsolete) pdftex package.
Hey! It sure is! :-)
I suppose I ought to read the new tetex's release notes before I
ask too man
Hi Dan. pdftex is now actually included in tetex, so you don't need to
install the (obsolete) pdftex package.
Also, ghostscript6 was something needed with OS X 10.1 and teTeX; we
need to update the description so that people realize it's no longer
necessary to install that one.
Thanks for the r
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:59:09 -0500
"David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version 2.0 of teTeX was released around 10 days ago, and there
> have been Fink packages in the unstable tree since then.
> Unfortunately, the source files for version 1.0 have now been
> removed from the upstream
Dear fink-users,
Version 2.0 of teTeX was released around 10 days ago, and there have been Fink
packages in the unstable tree since then. Unfortunately, the source files for
version 1.0 have now been removed from the upstream site, so I need to move
the 2.0 fink packages to the stable tree as soo
28 matches
Mail list logo
