Re: listings.sty removed ?
Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fundamentalism is a Bad Thing. About politics, religion, licensing or anything. And the fact is that teTeX 2.0 have lost usefulness because of such fundamentalism. I will check if the license of the listings package is ok for free software and put the package back if this turn out to be true. Sounds like it to me. I don't agree with your opinion on licensing. Being free software is a great plus for teTeX. All those nonfree packages are still available to TeX users, they are just not part of teTeX. On the other hand, teTeX is now free and can be included as part of a book-cdrom, linux distributions, other free software packages etc. As to the fundamentalism: much free software (TeX being a notable exception) nowadays consists of reimplementations of proprietary software. If you take fundamentalism aside, there is no reason to start developing a replacement for proprietary software if your investment of time and money to get free software of equal utility and quality will be more than a license for the proprietary software would have cost you. The fundamentalism of Stallman and others is responsible for software now being available which is the better choice even for non-fundamentalists. You consider yourself morally superior because you don't let your choices be reined in by fundamentalism. But without the fundamentalists paving the way beside the established paths, you would not even have a choice. To Robin: no I don't think that multicol.sty is nonfree. I remember that there was a lengthy discussion about that with the outcome of the current license. Is there any reason to recheck the license of multicol.sty? Well, the licence has been changed to address the previous objections, and so it was appropriately reassessed. Shall we really restart it all? Since Carsten Heinze did the same IIRC (rewording all things that previously were requirements into wishes), it would be fair to give listings.sty the same reassessment under those changed conditions that multicol.sty received. From taking a look at the wording in TeXlive7, I fail to see a problem. The additional terms are %% However, if you distribute the package as part of a commercial %% product or if you use the package to prepare a commercial document %% (books, journals, and so on), I'd like to encourage you to make a %% donation to the LaTeX3 fund. The size of this `license fee' should %% depend on the value of the package for your product. For more %% information about LaTeX see http://www.latex-project.org %% %% No matter whether you use the package for a commercial or %% non-commercial document, please send me a copy of the document (.dvi, %% .ps, .pdf, hardcopy, etc.) to support further development---it is %% easier to introduce new features or simplify things if I see how the %% package is used by other people. I'd like to encourage you is not a license requirement. [...] please send me can hardly be seen as a requirement in that context. I just checked the current source on CTAN which also contains % Modification advice. % Permission is granted to modify the listings package as well as % lstdrvrs.dtx. You are not allowed to distribute a modified version % of the package or lstdrvrs.dtx unless you change the file names and % provide the original files. In any case it is better to contact the % address below; other users will welcome removed bugs, new features, % and additional programming languages. This is labelled as advice, and indeed, it contains nothing that would not already be demanded by the LPPL. In short, I do not see how the package places additional restrictions beyond the LPPL. It asks for a few things in words that are clearly not intended to form an actual _requirement_, and it goes to some length to again stress a few points about the LPPL. If I am mistaken in my assessment, I'll be glad to here just where. But in my opinion I really am unable to see right now where the problem is. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: Broken pipe, teTeX dvips, Redhat linux
J.S. Plant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have a problem with dvips(k) 5.86 of tetex-1.0.7-57 under linux Redhat 8. Everything is OK if I type.. dvips file.dvi -o lpr file.ps However, if I type the (more normal) command for this.. dvips file.dvi I get the error message.. 'TeX output 2003..' - |lpr dvips: ! couldn't open output pipe Running a trace on this, gives the last executable command as.. stat64 |lpr and, as I understand it, stat64 is for checking the status of a file not a pipe(?) Any ideas? RedHat has goofed. Install the dvips package from Psyche or Rawhide. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: How can I instruct dvips to use outline fonts instead of the CM ones?
Giuseppe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or if you just want to do it for one file, not as the default for the full installation, just use the following flag to dvips: dvips -Ppdf myfile.dvi or maybe (depending on what fonts you use) dvips -Ppdf -G0 myfile.dvi This works quite fine, but the result is not so good as with pdflatex... Then your font map files for dvips are not appropriate for the set of fonts you have installed. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: 20030112 breaks dvips -o |lpr
Harald Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, using 20030112 pretest, dvips can't write output to pipes anymore: turtle fdp dvips -Php11 Protokoll_Regelkom_021217.dvi -o '| lp -dhp11' This is dvips(k) 5.92a Copyright 2002 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com) ' TeX output 2003.01.16:1546' - | lp -dhp11 /usr/local/teTeX/bin/dvips: ! couldn't open output pipe and turtle fdp dvips -Php11 Protokoll_Regelkom_021217.dvi -o '! lp -dhp11' This is dvips(k) 5.92a Copyright 2002 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com) ' TeX output 2003.01.16:1546' - ! lp -dhp11 /usr/local/teTeX/bin/dvips: ! couldn't open output pipe pretest 20021116 still was ok (can print), but 20021216 already is broken and has the same problem... The same sort of brokenness is prevalent in RedHat-8.0's binary. I presume that some mistaken sense of security is the cause: if somebody is able to smuggle in a |badprogram into the command line, he'll also be able to smuggle in what it takes to let it take action. If the output file could be specified from within the DVI file, things would be different, but I can't for the life of it make sense of why this should be more secure? Suppose that dvips is run in some sort of spoolern with priviledges and you want to avoid having a user call some program by that way. But you never should then let the user transfer a file name by itself, or he could equally maliciously specify /etc/passwd as the target file. I just don't get it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: 20030112 breaks dvips -o |lpr
Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's a very good point; if the *user* specifices -o |... that *should* override the security setting. Good, we agree here. What if the -o option comes from a config file; should that override the security setting? In secure mode, dvips should not trust the dvi file. I don't see why dvips should stop trusting its configuration files. If these are messed up by some other security problem, then the user has lost already. kpsepath dvips_config .:!!/root/texmf/dvips//:!!/usr/local/share/texmf/dvips//:!!/usr/share/texmf/dvips// Bad. Bad, bad, bad. Default TeX security for normal execution prohibits TeX from writing to files in external hierarchies or files starting with `.'. IMO, config files should _never_ be looked for in the default directory. If they aren't, we are pretty safe from Trojans in TeX files. Where is the point in reverting to trickery in order to write stuff to some place where you could write them in the first place if you wanted to? So, I suggest not to disable the output pipe at all (no matter wether it was set by some config file or the command line). So do I. And complain to whoever thought it reasonable to search for config files in `.' (mine is currently provided by RedHat, probably some old teTeX 1.0.7). As long as config files are kept out of areas where TeX processes can write, I don't think it a security problem if one can specify output to a pipe. In particular, since you could in the same place specify output to /etc/passwd. I hope you get my point why I think config files should not be looked for in `.'. That would be great, indeed. I plan to release teTeX-2.0, soon (now that pdftex-1.10a *final* is out). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: 20030112 breaks dvips -o |lpr
Tomas G. Rokicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What if someone untar's a paper distribution with a dvi file and associated figures, that contains a .dvipsrc file? Or config.ps file? Configuration files should not be searched for in the current directory. I am repeating myself here. And then runs dvips? In this case it's not TeX writing the output file, but we're still enabling an exploit. Now of course someone can do the same thing in general with a .bashrc file or .login file (assuming the user unpacks to the home directory, which is distressingly common). If a user unpacks something into his home directory where all sorts of configuration files are kept, TeX security is the least worry of the user. How about retricting the panicking to those cases where a user is acting in a remotely sane manner? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: 20030112 breaks dvips -o |lpr
Giuseppe Ghibò [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Furthermore in output pipe we could have different level of security, so to have both tex users as well as unix sysadmin happy (the latter mainly because dvips is for instance used in some printer filter which could run with root privileges): 1) allow pipe output to any command 2) allow pipe output but only to a fixed set of commands (fixed in the sources and not modifiable in further config files: e.g. only /usr/bin/lp [in case of running cups or SysV] and /usr/bin/lpr). Too contrived, IMO. 3) don't allow any output to a pipe, but only to files What's the use of that distinction? If I can write any file I have access to, I don't need no fscking pipe to do my harm in the first place. 4) don't allow any output to a pipe Or one considers certain options security relevant and won't accept them from a file in a TeX-writable place (. or below or so). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: 20030112 breaks dvips -o |lpr
Giuseppe Ghibò [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2) protect the system when dvips run as root as filter. The filters should have options to let all the pipes disabled. Don't see the necessity. root filters (like in line spoolers) are run in separate directories and with command line options specified by the filter programmer. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: texhash
Schiebel Kerstin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: is it possible to run texhash with a specific option for one directory (e.g. .../texmf-user) not for the whole search path? Yes. You could run texhash with the directory as its argument. Of course, man texhash would have told you that. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Quick question regarding -src-specials
It is a well-known problem that there are quite a few TeX versions
are around where -src-specials will cause the equivalent of
\usepackage{indentfirst}, namely causing chapter beginnings and the
like under LaTeX to be indented.
Does anybody have the scoop about what to tell the people still being
surprised? IIRC, this was supposed to be fixed (as in: the number
of cases where the specials wreaked appallingly visible havoc be
reduced) in some web2c version.
Are there any specific releases of teTeX-beta and/or TeXlive that one
could recommend as not being afflicted in that particular manner?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Re: Stack size limit?
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:58:39 +0200
From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I found that the following ditty which in earlier incarnations of my
system just died almost immediately with a Segmentation Fault, will
under current 2.4 Linux kernels under, say, RedHat's (null) beta,
cause the machine to more or less freeze:
tex '\def~{\if~}~'
My system (linux with 2.4.19 kernel) get slower, but tex is stopped with
! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [main memory size=251].
after a few seconds.
Which is very much harmless, no issue with that. For small settings
of the stack ulimit, this might also have segfaulted fast, what I
experienced previously and with which I don't have a problem, either.
But if you write \number instead of \if you should get to see the
unmitigated original problem, as I checked now. Please pass this on
to the web2c maintainer, I had just reported this from memory, and \if
seems to have another brake built in. With \number, on _this_ system
(not the one I am writing this mail on, logged in there remotely), the
Linux OOM killer got active and pulled the plug on the TeX process --
good decision. But it might also have decided to pull the plug on the
X Server instead. This will not cause any problem unless the stack
size ulimit is rather large or unlimited, which unfortunately seems to
be the default on my Laptop (newest RedHat).
That's bad. So perhaps one should let TeX automatically set a stack
size limit, roughly what
ulimit -s 1024 or so would do.
There are always ways to do weired things and to bring the system down
unless you set up limits that make the system unusable. I don't think
that adding such a system dependency is worth the trouble.
Well, I would consider it worth the trouble in cases where this may
affect system stability.
Anyway, the maintainer of web2c should decide that (since I aim to
follow him as closely as possible), so I'll forward him your
request.
I agree. Please pass on this letter as well, if it is not too much
trouble and if he is not reading the pretest list.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Re: Omega+teTeX
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Hoenig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand that you are planning to drop Omega from the official
teTeX distribution, and I am writing to urge you to reconsider this
decision. It is frustrating that Yannis Haralambous and John
Plaice are so uncommunicative, but I hope that this is no reason to
discriminate against the software.
It is not discriminated against. Once there is a stable release of
it, it can be included like anything else.
Many people lose interest in their programs, no longer have time,
or even die, but their software continues to live after them. The
current Omega works for me
What current Omega? There are several different releases with
different features and in different states of non-documentation. Who
but the user itself is to decide which of those versions is what will
be working for him?
Of course, even if Omega were not part of teTeX, it is still
readily available. Yet being ``dropped'' somehow confers a badge
of shame or even of illegitimacy that Omega does not deserve.
Get a stable release of it then. The contention with regard to that
is that Yannis and John are of the opinion that the current state is
so temporary that it is not worth either documenting it or developing
a consistent LaTeX interface for this version for lambda.
If you are of a different opinion, feel free to spin off a stable,
documented Omega/Lambda from the development line of Omega where you
find it appropriate. Yannis and John do not consider that worth
doing, and it certainly is above the head of someone like Thomas that
does not even use Omega.
It is cheap demanding that Thomas should do all the work required for
choosing and making a usable fixed point from Omega. I would be
willing to bet that if you volunteered on spearheading an effort of a
stable Omega spinoff, that Thomas would not object.
Moreover, an orphan Omega that is not integrated into teTeX will be
much harder for a na\{\i}ve user---even an experienced user---to
install. For these reasons, I do hope you will reconsider your
decision.
It is hard enough work to collect and arrange stable, released
software supported and documented by their authors. I would rather
have Thomas concentrate on that than trying to second-guess users and
developers of a system where nobody cares enough to provide a useful
release. And that also means you.
If you think I sound like a complete ***, this may be just because
I am, but that does not change the principal problem.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Re: 2002-08-25 pretest
From: Idris S Hamid [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:27:58 -0600 On Sunday 25 August 2002 22:58, Thomas Esser wrote: yesterday, I have uploaded a new teTeX-beta release: snip Omega was removed, mainly for two reasons: - I hardly get any response from John or Yannis is I have a question / problem (about copyright or tecnical stuff, e.g. about the lex problem on Solaris) - the latest Omega releases are not yet stable I might put Omega back as soon as the new release becomes stable. Ok, but what about those of us who use Omega for mission-critical work? And those would be installing the newest beta-test versions of teTeX for what particular reason? Mission-critical and beta-test are not the best match. Why can't you just stick with the last version you shipped, 1.15? Where mission-critical is concerned, I think you yourself are the best judge about what version of Omega might be the most appropriate for you. Get and compile that. Anyway, I think it's very sad seeing Omega removed from teTeX for what may be an indefinite period of time. How about telling that to the Omega developers? -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Re: texexec teTeX
Idris S Hamid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is the texexec.pl script executable? (chmod +x). Just did this. If you specify the complete path name (/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux/texexec.pl), does it run? Ok, I got it working, though I'm not sure exactly what did it. Here is some more strange behavior: If I'm in root and do texexec, everything works fine. If I'm in my user account and do texexec, everything works fine. If I su to my home directory from root (or su to root from my home dir), then texexec gives the error What do you mean with su to [your] home directory? su is used for changing users, not directories. Assuming that you mean su to a different user id or similar: texexec `texexec.pl' not found. If from here I su back to my home dir (or to root), the error remains. What does echo $PATH tell? What does env|grep ^PATH= tell? Starting a new console works if I don't su anywhere. I have installed the following in /etc/profile.d/texsetup.sh (based on advice from David Kastrup): case :$PATH: in *:/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux:*) ;; *) PATH=/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux:$PATH esac This is executed in login shells, but nowhere else. One possibility would be that you need to add export PATH although I really can't believe that PATH would not already be exported. Another would be that you have some settings in ~~/.bashrc that reset the PATH to a fixed value. A third one would be that after doing the change above you have not logged out: the change will only take effect in sessions started after it has been done. A fourth one would be that the permissions of /etc/profile.d/texsetup.sh are set in a way as to make the file unreadable for some users. A fifth one would be that your default shell is not bash or a Bourne shell. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: config woes
Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. I can't get my path commands to stick. When I issue export PATH=$PATH:/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux I have to reissue it each time I log in and sometimes more often. I have issued this command as root, and the problem still wont go away; environment variables are only passed to child processes on UNIX, never to parent processes. Put this setting into your private ~/.profile or /etc/profile to make it permanent. Bad advice. Here is why: The recommendation for the private configuration is almost correct. However, the above line has a bash-specific syntax, but .profile is intended for all Bourne shell derivates. So you should split it into two lines: PATH=$PATH:/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux export PATH Actually, since PATH is _sure_ to be exported already, the second line is overkill. Notice the quotes: they are necessary in case PATH already contains directories with spaces or other weird characters in them. Then you would usually want to add to the front of the PATH, and you would want to add to it only in case that the stuff is not already there (I have found it sometimes to be convenient to reload .profile, and maybe the system-wide default had already catered for us. We don't want duplicates in the path, they slow things down). So: case :$PATH: in *:/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux:*) ;; *) PATH=/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux:$PATH esac Ok, that settles .profile. Now why is your advice bad, bad, bad for the system-wide configuration, as well? Because we nowadays have Linux distributions that can be upgraded. And /etc/profile is sure to be under the control of the upgrade process which will require manual intervention after any future upgrade once we tamper with /etc/profile. For that reason, there usually is a directory like /etc/profile.d on most systems. Put a file of your own in there, something like mytexsetup.sh and write the lines above in there. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: config woes
Greg Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: | Ok, that settles .profile. Now why is your advice bad, bad, bad for | the system-wide configuration, as well? Because we nowadays have | Linux distributions that can be upgraded. And /etc/profile is sure to | be under the control of the upgrade process which will require manual | intervention after any future upgrade once we tamper with | /etc/profile. Any such system is utterly broken. It's all very well to provide a default /etc/profile for a new installation, but it's completely wrong to overwrite such a file on an upgrade. It's there for the system admin to populate as she wishes and no upgrade has any business playing with it. Please reread what I wrote: which will require manual intervention after any future upgrade once we tamper with does not imply that the /etc/profile will be overwritten. In fact, systems like RedHat will not overwrite it on an upgrade, but will instead generate a file /etc/profile.rpmnew and will tell you in its installation log file that they did so. It then becomes your responsibility of merging the intended changes to /etc/profile in the sections provided from the distribution vendor into the file /etc/profile. Since the vendor presumably had some reason to augment his own idea of /etc/profile, you better to so in order to keep the system working as well as to be expected from a system upgraded to that version. This is manual intervention, and it is a pain. For that reason, the vendors provide directories like /etc/profile.d where you can make your own additions rather painlessly. If you decide to rather take over whole responsibility for /etc/profile, you are free to do so. But I don't see how the resulting ensuing work on each upgrade can be blamed upon the vendor, when he has clearly provided you with a sensible way to avoid it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: config woes
Idris Samawi Hamid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just check if the oxdvi script exists in /usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux. Oh it's definitely there! I even tried to edit it to no avail. Clicking on it gives Couldn't find the program 'oxdvi'' chmod +x /usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux/oxdvi And check whether the executable in its first line actually exists at the specified location. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: inverting ps/pdf
Kalyan Mukherjea [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Finally --- thanks to all the people of the Free software community for their unfailing courtesy, patience and willingness to help those who need help. Well, at least nobody suggested you bite the bullet, close your eyes, and use Emacspeak (which I have not tried yet myself, but it certainly won't be much of a replacement for previewers). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Avoiding dvi files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Saturday, 23. March 2002 22:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to setup tetex to produce postscript files instead of dvi? I find that I'm almost always converting the dvi to ps, either for printing or even on-screen viewing ... I can type 'dvips ...; gv ...' almost in my sleep. Wouldn't it be a smart solution to write a simple script which contains these commands and does the conversion automatically ? You could name that script pstex for example and it would have a layout similar to tex $1 dvips ... gv ... Yes, I'd thought of that...but it's not all that simple. I think the biggest hassle is writing code to check to see if the (la)tex file compiled properly... Guess I was hoping that someone had done it already :) Somebody somewhere has written a big Makefile template for this, and of course there are dozens of TeX environments around that do things like this. However, I thought I'd read of some version of tex which did produce ps files directly. Maybe it's a commercial version or something. pdflatex perhaps? PDF nowadays is mostly as ubiquitous as PostScript. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Avoiding dvi files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sebastian Rahtz wrote: On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 02:02:38PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to setup tetex to produce postscript files instead of dvi? I find that I'm almost always converting the dvi to ps, either for printing or even on-screen viewing ... I can type 'dvips ...; gv ...' almost in my sleep. this is why god (or other deity of your choice) gave you pdftex. just use pdftex followed by xpdf|gv|acroread. To be truthful, I'd not even thought of pdf(la)tex. Yes, this may be a reasonable solution...expect that it produces pdf, not ps, files. I'm not sure, but I think that to print pdf files to my postscript printer they first would need to be converted to ps. I'm really not all that familiar with pdf, except that I know that xpdf doesn't display type3 fonts properly and acroread is huge and slow. Is there some overwhelming reason to use pdf instead of ps? For printing, no, for electronic distribution of documents, yes. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: no french spacing please
andrej hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
I think that \documentclass[french,slovene, ...]{article}
together with \selectlanguage{slovene} automatically inserts more
space after periods. I may be wrong, but how do I force french
spacing off? I'm using it only because it makes _french_ double
quotes look better.
You are asking this question on the wrong list. You should have
received the charter of the group when you subscribed: it is for
discussing matters voncerning the teTeX distribution and
implementation of LaTeX, not for discussin general matters concerning
TeX/LaTeX. Please use the Usenet group comp.text.tex for that.
Apart from that, you are confused: American spacing
(\nonfrenchspacing) makes larger spaces after periods, one uses
\frenchspacing when one does not want it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tetex on aix help
LU TUN [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: just install tetex, after run latex try.tex erro report: !undefined control sequence 1.1 \documentstyle undefined control sequence 1.2 \topmargin and more what is the problem? thanks. I'd almost want to bet that you run 'tex', not 'latex'. Either that, or you have played arond with the symbolic links of executables. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reformatting section heads
Peter Gallagher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please forgive me if this is not the place to ask this question ... I'm new to TeX. But you should have received the list's charter when you subscribed. A more appropriate place would be the newsgroup comp.text.tex. A good ressource for English-speaking people is http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?introduction=yes for Germans http://www.dante.de/faq/de-tex-faq In your case I'd look at the titlesec package. It is part of teTeX and its documentation can be accessed with texdoc titlesec PS: I notice that Thomas Esser participates in this list. Small wonder, since the *sole* purpose of this list is to discuss specifics of the teTeX distribution, *not* of general TeX/LaTeX matters. If you read this, Thomas, thank you very much for TeTeX. As I learn more about LaTeX I realize that TeTeX is a wonderful piece of work and I'm very grateful to you for it (and to Gerben Wierda for his Mac OS X version). See, that was on-topic. DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you receive this message in error please notify the originator and delete the message. I hereby notify the originator Peter Gallagher that I received his message in error since tetex is not the correct list to ask his main question to. I will delete the message. This email is subject to copyright. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden without the written consent of the copyright owner. This is a nuisance. Since I doubt it will be easy or part of the usual procedures to manually purge your Email from the list archives (which are accessible to anyone), I strongly recommend that you send in writing either a) a waifer that will free the list archivers of the duty to remove your copyrightable material from the archives, b) a formal request for removal of your letters, specifying the headers of the particular mails you wish to have removed from the archive due to copyright reasons. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: problems with eurofont tfm-Files
Peter Bruehne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: first of all, I hope this is the right place to ask for help for the following problem: I recently installed the euro-Package for typesetting the euro-symbol with TeX and LaTeX. As supposed I put the tfm-Files (zpeubis.tfm etc.) in the directory $TEXMF/fonts/tfm/adobe/eurofont/ of the local teTeX installation. TeXing the example eurosamp.tex is no problem, but creating the pk-files fails (while trying to view the dvi-file with xdvi). The following is the contents of the missfont.log file: mktexpk: Running gsftopk zpeubi 300 AFPL Ghostscript 7.00: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1 A known bug of GhostScript 7.00. Why have you installed it? Since it is under the AFPL license, you usually have to download it yourself and using an outdated version in that case is utterly unnecessary. The first version known to work reliably with gsftopk again is GhostScript 7.03, the current version is 7.04. Since 7.04 has been out only for few days, I cannot say anything about it, but I would guess it is not worse than 7.03. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: latex/pdflatex page size in teTeX
Ken Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Murdie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've just had a user here point out to me that a LaTeX document typeset
with `latex' (from teTeX 1.0.7) is positioned 0.65 (approx 17mm)
further down the page than when it is typeset with pdflatex. I think the
DVI-typeset version is correct. The LaTeX source file is:
[source file deleted]
I encourage users here to use the `a4paper' class argument, but I
believe that should be the default anyway.
It's almost as if pdflatex is ignoring the `a4paper'. I've not altered
the teTeX configuration files, but it does look as if the PDF
typesetting is being targetted at U.S. Letter paper.
It could be your pdf reader/printer.
I'd check your pdf configuration stuff.
On the system here, using acroread to view and print stuff, if I look
at the file - page setup menu it claims to be printing on A4 paper with
dimensions width 8.5 ins and height 11 ins.
Clicking on the paper size and resetting A4 gives the correct A4 paper
sizes.
The systems people haven't been able to track down just what is going
on, and are starting to suspect that acroread has US letter sizes
built in somewhere.
The problem is that the a4paper option is not passed on to the DVI
processors unless you load some package that includes appropriate
\special commands. One possibility is
\usepackage{hyperref}
Another packages that wraps this information into \specials is the
geometry package.
If you don't use any of those packages, you have to tell your DVI
postprocessor with appropriate options about A4 paper. With pdftex,
this is usually done in pdftex.cfg. The default in teTeX is A4,
however. This should only be overriden if you don't specify the
a4paper document option, and use one of the above mentioned packages
that then inform pdftex of the user's choice of letterpaper (LaTeX's
default).
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pdflatex and tipa fonts - works
Reiner Wilhelms-Tricarico [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: # Makefile for TIPA. # # You need to edit PREFIX. (I did) PREFIX=/usr/share/texmf Just let me add that it is a bad idea to install things like that in the main tree, /usr/share/texmf instead of, say, /usr/local/share/texmf. The reason is that things get ugly when you upgrade your distribution. As long as you keep local additions in a local tree, this is simply removing the old tree, installing the new one, editing the new texmf.cnf to point to the local tree as well (if that's not already done. BTW, Thomas, with most file system layouts, /usr/local/share/texmf is a better place for it than /usr/share/texmf.local). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2001/12/02 pretest
Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Thomas, just to know, do you plan to add dvipdfm and ttf2pk support in your latest beta? BTW, do you plan also to include the tx/pxfonts (they are GPL) in the main texmf tree? As I've not seen yet them in 20011202 beta. There are other things that I plan to do first. A stable teTeX will not happen before the next web2c release (teTeX-beta currently contains a web2c test release). While we are being nosy... Are there any plans to include Type1 versions of the EC fonts, like cmsuper or so? Or has this already happened? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Search paths
Olaf Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The current behaviour of the kpathsea library (which Web2C TeX uses to find files) when given 'story' is to look for 'story.tex' in every directory of the search path, then do a second search for 'story' if nothing was found. We've had some discussions with Knuth about this, and the upshot was that we agreed that this did violate the principle of least surprise. It would be better for Web2C TeX to look for 'story.tex' and then 'story' in the first directory of the search path, then look for both in the second, and so on until the first match is found. Just in order to vent my opinion about this, I disagree. I don't think it better when the occurence of an extensionless file (could be a binary, for all that it is worth) somewhere in the search path suddenly causes different behaviour. In particular, plain TeX just has the standard extension .tex. If you use some plain TeX macro file, it will include other plain TeX packages via \input. If any such file happened to have an extensionless cousin in the current directory, then that file would be used instead. And the user could not even trace it back to a file name conflict since in his current directory there *is* no file with a name identical to that of the now excluded file in the search tree. Reverting to an extensionless file should be done really only as a last resort, in my opinion. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Type 1 Fonts
Paul Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello - I would like very much to be able to produce web-readable PDF documents from my LATEX documents, but I just don't have enough expertise to install the type 1 (postscript) fonts that are needed. I have read many pages on the web on how to do this, but none are specific enough to allow me to accomplish this. Is there anyone with the time and patience who can walk me through this? I have a Sun Ultra 5 running SunOS 5.8, teTeX version 0.4 You install a less ancient teTeX and use dvips -Ppdf -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: finally: new texmf tarball (beta-20011128)
Adrian == Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adrian dvips/config/config.ps is that dvips sends generated .ps Adrian files directly to the printer I don't see anything wrong with that, it is a reasonable default behaviour. Whereas generating a .ps file has no reasonable default: the mode to use depends on whether you want to later print the PS on a particular printer, publish it on the web for the sake of downloading and printing, convert it to PDF via ps2pdf and so on. In short, default .ps file creation is an illusion, anyhow. That's my personal opinion, of course. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CM-Super package released
Vladimir == Vladimir Volovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vladimir if ß in CM has the same metric values, i could replace it in the Vladimir CM-Super fonts. It has. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: \jobname
From: Fabrice Popineau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19 Jul 2001 00:39:14 +0200
Before I spend time on it, does anybody knows why :
D:\tmptex latex \input foo.tex
produces foo.dvi
and
D:\tmptex latex \renewcommand\encodingdefault{T1}\selectfont\input foo.tex
produces texput.dvi? Shouldn't jobname be set accordingly to the
first filename \input?
Yes, unless something forces it to be determined at an earlier point
of time. In this case, \selectfont produces diagnostic output that
goes to the log file. The log file has to be opened, and it is named
\jobname.log.
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Re: Typesetting tables in LaTeX
From: "Alexander Darovsky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:11:31 +0500 Hello everybody. I've seen \multicolumn command in \tabular environment, but how can I typeset a table described with the following HTML code? table trtd rowspan=3long verticaltditem1 trtditem2 trtditem3 trtditem4tditem5 /table? There's no any \multirow or spanning. The only desision I see is using multiple columns, but do not draw horisontal part of the line, but it goes well only until "long vertical" fits in one line... This is *not*, I repeat *not* a teTeX question. teTeX-L is a list dedicated to discussing specifics of the teTeX distribution, not particular LaTeX problems. That being said: CTAN:macros/latex/contrib/supported/multirow/ If you don't know about CTAN, try finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyhow, multirow should be part of the TeX Catalogue which is part of the teTeX documentation. David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209 Institut fr Neuroinformatik, Universittsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Re:
Date: 5 Jul 00 09:29:50 MET DST From: katharina empt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where do I put a new File (*.sty) after having it unpacked so that it it will be found by latex? You call texconfig and choose the menu point "Frequently Asked Questions and Answers" (or similar). You'll get the necessary information. David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Re: TeX Capacity exceeded with package listings
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:55:13 -0500
From: John Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I use the package "listings" and I have the following message:
"! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack=3D300].
\@nomath ...e \@font@warning {Command \noexpand #1
invalid in math mode}\fi"
I have read somewhere over this problem and the solution, but I don't =
know
where.
Sounds like you need to increase the save_size in texmf.cnf.
Sounds like nonsense to me. input stack and save size are two
different beasts.
The input stack size restricts the number of nested sources TeX
might be reading from (token registers, macros, input files, and the
like).
Exceeding an input stack size of 300 is most likely an input or
programming error.
Try putting
\errorcontextlines=3D\maxdimen
at the top of your file and post the *relevant* (not the almost 300
repeated parts) of the resulting log file.
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209
Institut f=FCr Neuroinformatik, Universit=E4tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germa=
ny
Re: (pdf)latex.fmt not found
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:54:04 + From: Marc van Dongen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just completely erased my old teTeX installation and reinstalled it. I think I have all the TEXINPUTS* variables pointing to the right directories. Nevertheless, when I run pdflatex I get a I can't find the format file `pdflatex.fmt'! error. For latex I get I can't find the format file `latex.fmt'! a find in my teTeX directory reveals that latex.fmt does exist but pdflatex.fmt not. $ find /usr/local/teTeX/ -name latex.fmt - /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf/source/latex/base/latex.fmt $ find /usr/local/teTeX/ -name pdflatex.fmt - nothing Is there anything I missed in the installation? Yes. The installation and bug reporting instructions. First, latex.fmt does not seem to sit in a directory where formats are searched for. Second, you probably have not run texconfig and generated all respective formats/bases (gets done automagically after configuring default mf modes and hyphenations). Third, you have failed to provide the output of texconfig confall for helping us to diagnose the problem in case my above guesses (and without any more useful information, guesses they will remain) turn out to be wrong. David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Re: texmf.cnf
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:20:32 +0100 From: Matthias Schweinoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] we're using tetex 1.0.9 on a Solaris 2.6 OS. One of the users wishes to modify the value of the TEXMFCNF variable, to import his own texmf.cnf file. Apparently this worked in tetex 0.9pre, but with 1.0.9 he has the following problems: bash% export TEXMFCNF=`kpsewhich texmf.cnf`; latex Mue11 This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1) ---! Must increase the trie size (Fatal format file error; I'm stymied) Sounds like the sizes in his texmf.cnf are incompatible with the sizes with which the format file has been generated. He will most probably need to generate his own format files to go with his texmf.cnf settings, or adapt a few changed settings from the newly changed 1.0.9 texmf.cnf file. It might also be that some missing sizes are making tex give up. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-32-14209 Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
