teTeX-2.0.2 file permissions

2003-03-08 Thread George White
Quoting Piet van Oostrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 xdvizilla (in tetex-src-2.0.2/texk/xdvik/) appears to be missing the x
 permission. 

On my linux system the x-permission was set (by install -- the default is
755 which is why you need the -m 644 option to install documentation) when the
file was installed.  Why does the permission in the source tree matter?  Are you
using a funny version of install?

Speaking of permissions, Mandrake's msec security tool noticed a few world
writable files/directories in the main texmf tree:

texmf/fonts/pk
texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour
texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/jknappen
texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/jknappen/ec
texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/jknappen/tc
texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/public
texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/public/dstroke
texmf/ls-R
texmf/web2c/mf.base
texmf/web2c/mf.log


Re: teTeX-2.0.2 file permissions

2003-03-08 Thread George White
Quoting Giuseppe Ghibò [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 George White wrote:
 
  Quoting Piet van Oostrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  
  
 xdvizilla (in tetex-src-2.0.2/texk/xdvik/) appears to be missing the x
 permission. 
  
  
  On my linux system the x-permission was set (by install -- the default is
  755 which is why you need the -m 644 option to install documentation) when
 the
  file was installed.  Why does the permission in the source tree matter? 
 Are you
  using a funny version of install?
  
  Speaking of permissions, Mandrake's msec security tool noticed a few world
  writable files/directories in the main texmf tree:
  
  texmf/fonts/pk
  texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour
  texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/jknappen
  texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/jknappen/ec
  texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/jknappen/tc
  texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/public
  texmf/fonts/pk/ljfour/public/dstroke
  texmf/ls-R
  texmf/web2c/mf.base
  texmf/web2c/mf.log
  
 
 which version? And are you sure is main texmf tree and not in /var/lib/texmf?
 As in /var/lib/texmf to allow users to generate on the fly the PK fonts. On 
 main texmf tree, i.e. /usr/share/texmf there shouldn't be such files, unless
 maybe you are running tex as root.

Version 2.0.2, main texmf tree, installed and run from ordinary user login.
In version 2.0.1, only texmf/ls-R ended up with world-write permission.


Re: Context, teTeX and Times, Helvetica, Courier

2003-02-26 Thread George White
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Maarten Sneep wrote:

 Hi,
 
 Can someone check something for me on a recent installation of teTeX (i.e. 
 teTeX 2.0(.1)) on some other platform than Mac OS X:
 
 In context I cannot get the uwr fonts to work. The following (minimalistic) 
 file shows the problem on Mac OS X using the distribution prepared by Gerben 
 Wierda. I want to figure out if it is a problem with his packaging or with 
 teTeX in general (I suspect the latter).

This isn't a bug in teTeX, just a question of how much configuration work
should be done buy the distro and what should be left to the user.  I use
ConTeXT with teTeX-2.0.1, but I have the font tfm's, vf's, and map files
created using texfont (see mtexfont.pdf from the ConTeXt web site) with
'texnansi' encoding in texmf-local/fonts.  Your example works for me if I
replace 'ec' with 'texnansi' (tested on Mandrake Linux 9.0 and SGI Irix
6.5). 

 %% start test file. Save as test.txt
 \starttext
 \setupencoding[default=ec]
 \useencoding[ec]
 \setupbodyfont[pos,12pt]
 \input tufte
 \stoptext
 %% end of the example
 
 Run this file with texexec (texexec --pdf test) and see if it works. On 
 TeXLive this works. Since this is what the author of context uses, I decided 
 to switch and it works fine. Since Thomas decided to include support for 
 context in his distribution, I think it should work on teTeX as well.

The texfont documentation suggests creating a texmf-local/fonts tree 
for the font configuration you use, so this is a bit out-of-scope
for teTeX.  I haven't the time now to make sure I can actually 
configure the ec encoding for the URW fonts, but in principle the
tools you need are there.
 
 The fonts I'm asking for are available to LaTeX, so it is a little more 
 detailed than The fonts aren't there, dude ...

It is far from easy to diagnose problems with fonts.  Add to that the 
need to support many different encodings and the fact that many programs
don't tell the truth about which fonts are actually being used.  

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia


Re: Saving counter values to .aux

2003-02-26 Thread George White
Quoting David C Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 I'm trying to write a document which includes financial data, towards 
 the end I sum up various costs using a counter (\newcounter and all 
 that) and some simple macros.  This works fine and gets me the total 
 costs at the end of the document.  But I would like to copy the final 
 figure to the start of the document for a summary, and of course I'd 
 like this automatic (even if that means running the document through 
 [...]
 LaTeX twice after a change).
 Needless to say it does not work!  The error message, with teTeX version 
 2.0 (downloaded late January 2003) and compiled on Linux:
 
 (./proposal.toc [1]) [2]Segmentation fault (core dumped)

What are the odds that Scott Pakin's symbols.tex has the answer to two
different questions in the same week?  Still, LaTeX shouldn't dump core
here, and for me, with teTeX-2.0.1 on Mandrake Linux 9.0, the above
construct seems to work fine.  Can we see a minimal example?


Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)

2003-02-21 Thread George White
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Thomas Esser wrote:

  is it possible that europs is missing in teTeX 2.0(.1)?  g-brief 3.0
  seems to rely on it.
 
 teTeX has eurosym and marvosym to support the Euro symbol. I am not
 sure ig this dependency of g-brief to europs is intentional or a bug.
 IMHO, g-brief should be happy with just one implementation for the
 Euro symbol.
 
 As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the type1
 files cannot be distributed with teTeX.

Larger organizations (government, big companies) require that certain
documents conform to standards, which may well include a particular font
for the euro.  Times-Roman, etc, aren't distributed with teTeX, but they
(or some facsimile) are commonly found on many popular systems, so it
makes sense that TeX support them.  I'm not in a position to know how
organizations across the pond support the euro, but if there is a Type 1
font that is commonly installed beside Times-Roman, then it makes sense
for a new TeX to make it easy to use them.

The other consideration is whether it is easier to make europs just work
for systems that have the font or to explain why it doesn't work.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia


Re: How can I instruct dvips to use outline fonts instead of the CM ones?

2003-01-31 Thread George White
There are outline versions of the CM fonts, but some publications and
organizations insist on specific fonts.

On 31 Jan 2003, David Kastrup wrote:

 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...

Which might mean a problem with something entirely unrelated to 
the fonts (e.g., wrong papersize, problems with links, etc.). 

 Then your font map files for dvips are not appropriate for the set of
 fonts you have installed.

It is very hard to know what is going on without more details.  If the
problem is related to fonts, then it is useful to keep track of exactly
which fonts are being used. When dvips runs, it lists the font files: 

$ dvips -P pdf story.dvi
This is dvips(k) 5.92a Copyright 2002 Radical Eye Software
(www.radicaleye.com)
' TeX output 2003.01.23:1320' - story.ps
tex.proalt-rule.protexc.prof7b6d320.enctexps.pro. cmr10.pfb
cmsl10.pfbcmbx10.pfb[1] 

From this we see that the Type 1 versions of cmr10, cmsl10, and cmbx10
were used.  If you can get the resulting pdf file to a computer running
*nix, then it is easy to check which fonts are actually used in a pdf
file. 

$ pdffonts story.pdf
name type emb sub uni object ID
  --- --- --- -
KGIMMU+CMBX10Type 1   yes yes no  10  0
NSPLPE+CMSL10Type 1   yes yes no  13  0
ZHKQYB+CMR10 Type 1   yes yes no  16  0

When you view the file with acroread, you can also get a list of the
fonts Alt+Ctl+F.  Unfortunately, this isn't in a form that is easy to
paste into email, but you should see something like: 

Original Font   Type   Used Font   Type
CMBX10 Type 1  Custom Embedded Subset Type 1
CMBSL10Type 1  Custom Embedded Subset Type 1
CMR10  Type 1  Custom Embedded Subset Type 1

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia



Re: Problems with teTeX on FreeBSD 4.7

2002-12-26 Thread George White
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Gene C. Ruzicka wrote:

 i've looked over the list of supported teTeX platforms at the above link, 
 but none of them corresponds to my platform, which is X86/cygwin . 
 do you support the cygwin platform, or are the cygwin people responsible
 for that?

Just a note of encouragement:  I built a teTeX beta almost exactly 1 year
ago using instructions posted on a Japanese web site (try a search for
cygwin tetex beta).  There was a minor problem with the generated
Makefiles that I fixed manually, but overall the build went smoothly.  The
reason for building teTeX was to solve a problem one of our students was
having with pdftex on a Win95 PC (the install .DLL versions didn't suit
either fptex or MikTeX, and she needed to run some lab instrumentation
software so it didn't make sense to risk updating DLL's just for pdftex).

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia



Re: LaTeX packages from MiKTeX --- teTeX?

2002-12-10 Thread George White
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Richard Sperling wrote:

 I've got a dual boot system, i.e., Linux/Windows 2000. I've got MiKTeX 
 installed on the Windows disk. Apologies if this question has been 
 asked/answered before, but am I correct in assuming that it's ok to take the 
 LaTeX packages that come with MiKTeX and install them in the requisite places 
 under teTeX? So there is no misunderstanding, I am only asking about LaTeX 
 package files per se, not the binaries, which are obviously platform 
 specific. Thanks.

In general, this should work, but you have to watch for the odd situation
where the newlines matter (e.g., some shell or perl script).  There are
tools that try to make intelligent conversions of newlines, but they 
can't always be trusted.  If you want to keep teTeX tightly synchronized
with MiKTeX for a small number of users this could be a reasonable thing
to do.  Another option would be to install texlive.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia



Re: incredibly strange problem distilling a LaTeX--based .ps file

2002-12-09 Thread George White
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Gene C. Ruzicka wrote:

 i'm not sure if this is the correct venue to raise this issue, but
 here goes:
 
 here is a trivial LaTeX document:
 
 \documentclass[10pt]{article}
 \usepackage{times}
 \begin{document}
 \begin{abstract}
 fill fill
 \end{abstract}
 fill
 \end{document}
 
 when i run this through LaTeX, and then through dvips, the .ps file looks fine
 when printed and when viewed using gsview  if the LaTeX is file
 foo.tex, i generate the .ps file using: dvips foo . problems start when i
 try to distill the postscript file to a .pdf file. for that operation, i use the
 command: ps2pdf foo.ps foo.pdf .  when i read (or print) foo.pdf, the fi
 ligature in the body of the document (i.e., in the word fill
 following the abstract) is separated by an unusually large space from
 the remaining letters. in both cases, the same .dvi file is used, so
 the problem can't originate in dvips.  The problem  can be fixed simply by 
 removing one of the two words fill from the absract portion of the 
 document??!!  btw, the problem vanishes entirely when i remove 
 \usepackage{times} from the LaTeX file.
 
 the cause of this problem seems to be the UNIX version of 
 ghostscript which is ultimately invoked by the ps2pdf macro.
 on my PC at home, i have two versions of ghostscript:
 one comes with the Cygwin package, and the other is the windows
 version of ghostsscript, gswin32c.   i experience the problem with
 the Cygwin ghostscript but not with gswin32c . Also, i experience
 the problem with the ghostscript on my sgi workstation at work.
 
 at first glance, this problem sounds like something i've read about
 on this list when  \usepackage{times} is combined with dvips -Ppdf,
 but i don't think that's really the case.  

Did you check the bug reports on sourceforge?  Is this bug #524292
(present in gs7.03-7.10, but not 6.51, now marked as closed):

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=1897atid=101897func=detailaid=524292

-- 
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia




Re: new dvips

2002-11-27 Thread George White
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Kalyan Mukherjea wrote:

 Hi Dmitri,
Fromwhere did you download the files? Thomas had sent me the
 url:
 http://www.dbs.uni-hannover.de/~te/dvips5.92a/
 
 On that page there are 3 links:
 to Thomas's web page (Parent directory)
 a dvips*.tar.gz file which contains the necessary run time files;
 and 
 _dvips_ which is a binary compiled under SuSE linux 7.2.
 
   I downloaded the tar.gz file --- no hassle. But when I click
 on the link _dvips_ my netscape opens a new page which fills up with
 nonsense symbols typical of a binary file. I cannot get the binary
 file to download as a file. 
 
  I am sure I am doing something very silly but what should I do?
 Maybe Dmitri could send me the url he went to.

Most browsers have an option to download a link target.  Try clicking on
the link with the outside button (right hand button if you have a right
handed mouse).  If your linux system is connected to the internet, there
are command-line tools to download files such as wget.  Also, text-mode
browsers such as links and lynx have a download command.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia




Re: Font problem or not?

2002-10-31 Thread George White
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Staszek Wawrykiewicz wrote:
 
 George N. White III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I find the current map file mechanism problematic, especially when using
  non-std fonts, because you can't tell from the TeX source what fonts are
  really being used.
 
 It is not TeX problem but final output/device dependent. For TeX we use
 only .tfm files.

So you can have dvips fail to find the font that corresponds to the 
.tfm file (missing entry) or end up with different fonts being used
on different systems (e.g., Adobe vs URW, MathTime vs Belleek, etc).

 If (for some reason) we have two different map files, we can always declare
 them in config.ps and pdftex.cfg, respectively (p +mymap.map).

You can, but if you take the file to another system or mail it to someone
else, will you remember to change the .map files?  If you use pdftex's
ability to load map files specified in the .tex file, it is at least clear
which fonts you intended to use, and it will be obvious if the required
map files aren't present.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia




Re: running texconfig on a console

2002-10-29 Thread George White
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:

  George == George N White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  The nice menu display is done using the dialog utility, so
  you should check that dialog is installed and works with your
 
 teTeX provides its own dialog, called tcdialog, which uses its own
 termcap library.  Can you invoke tcdialog from the commandline?

This seems to be system dependent.  From TeXlive's texconfig:

# Some systems have their own dialog. Use it then and do not use
# faked TERM and TERMINFO variables when calling that dialog.

Some systems appears to be defined as BSD and linux.  My SGI does
indeed use tcdialog.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia




Re: dvips-ing TETEXDOC.dvi

2002-10-24 Thread George White
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Thomas Esser wrote:

 That -Ppdf turn on a feature called character shifting and dvips is
 not smart enough to detect that this does not work with all fonts. This
 is fixed in newer version of dvips, but with the old version, you can
 use -Ppdf -G0.

It would be helpful to have a more precise definition of newer.  I have
noticed that Mandrake 9.0 appears to have split their tetex 1.07 package.
Although most teTeX 1.07 systems have the older dvips, Mandrake's dvips
from tetex-dvips-1.0.7-60mdk.i586.rpm does not exhibit the problem (sorry
I don't recall the dvips version that worked -- it is installed on a
laptop that is locked up for the night in my office). 

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia




Re: teTeX 1.0.7 doesn't install

2002-09-18 Thread George White

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Magnus Mager wrote:

 test -f /usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu/texconfig  \
   TEXMFMAIN=/usr/local/share/texmf 
 
PATH=/usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu:/usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin
 
 \
 /usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu/texconfig init
 ^[[H^[[2JError opening terminal: generic.
 ^[[H^[2Jmake: *** [install] Error 1

It appears that your TERM variable is set to generic rather than 
something like xterm or vt100.  I think this failure is in the
last step of the install, where you need to do the final setup.
You can try fixing the terminal settings and running texconfig init
manually.  Whenever I install a new TeX distro I always try running
latex ltxcheck (as an ordinary user in a scratch directory) to make sure
the basics are working correctly, followed by some simple things like
etex story  dvips story, latex sample2e  dvips sample2e, etc.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: Release / status of teTeX

2002-05-30 Thread George White

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Erik Frisk wrote:

 Hi, 
 
  The -G1 option in dvips (can be activated on the commandline or in a
  config file; typically it is enabled in config.pdf) turn on a feature
  named character shifting. This works around bugs in various other
  software, by shifting characters of a font to the upper area of a
  font. This works well e.g. with CM fonts, but it fails if the upper
  slots are not free in the font.
 
 Yes, this I have noted and have therefore commented out G in config.pdf
 Which softwares has bugs that make character-switching necessary?

The bug is the use of a zero byte to mark the end of a string in
standard C strings (you lose \Gamma and math minus).  Problems have been
seen in early versions of Acrobat Reader, and many drawing programs
that claim to import PS files.

Since the native graphics API's on most common platforms use C strings,
character shifting remains useful in situations where you want to import a
PS file or translate it to another format.  One notable exception was
NeXTStep, which used Display PS and Objective-C.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: question about adding packages and fonts

2002-05-21 Thread George White

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Christopher Pinon wrote:

 I'm new to teTeX but have used LaTeX on another platform.  I'm getting
 ready to migrate to teTeX for full-time use and have a couple of questions
 about adding packages and fonts, and even updating LaTeX, in teTeX.  If I
 understand well, I should preferably add local packages and fonts to a new
 texmf-tree and make Kpathsea aware of this tree.  Is there a generally
 preferred location for such a new texmf-tree, or does everyone just choose
 a place that s/he likes best?  When it comes to updating LaTeX itself, am I
 right to assume that I should overwrite the standard texmf-tree?  In
 principle, I guess, I could also add a new LaTeX version to my new
 texmf-tree, but this seems less efficient.  (I'm using teTeX 1.0.6 from
 Debian Potato.)

Some people have $HOME/texmf, others make a /usr/local[/share]/texmf.
You may also want to have a texmf-fonts directory as suggested in some
recent ConTeXt docs.  Most people either use the names in the 
default texmf.cnf or edit that file to match their own preferences.

If you expect to install updated linux distributions, you may want to
leave the distribution as is, and make all the changes in your own
tree[s] so you don't loose any changes when you update the distribution
(or change to a different linux distribution).  You can do this by putting
your edited copy of texmf.cnf in a place you choose and setting the
TEXMFCNF environment variable.  This can be helpful in troubleshooting
because you can easily revert to the original distributed configuration by
unsetting TEXMFCNF.  A disadvantage is that you could end up using
outdated versions of packages you installed after updating your
distribution.

There is nothing magic about latex -- as long as you understand how latex
finds files you can make sure that you are using any update that you
install.  With kpathsea there isn't a significant runtime penalty to
having multiple trees with old and new versions of latex, and the disk
space required for a latex distribution is rarely a concern these days. 

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: Dvips and type 1 font trouble

2002-05-21 Thread George White

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Gregory D. Collins wrote:

 Hello all,
 
 I'm having trouble with dvips and type 1 fonts.  I installed Adobe
 Garamond into my teTeX distribution, but dvips is not spitting out
 correct postscript files; the characters in the generated output are
 substituted by Courier.

Did you install .pf[a|b] files, or just the tfm's?  Are you viewing the
file with showps or gs, or sending it to a printer?  Is it a PostScript
printer or are you rendering the file using ghostscript?

 The strange thing is that both xdvi and pdflatex generate correct
 output. Also, examination of the generated ps file shows that the font
 has indeed been put into the output. Sending the .ps file to the printer
 also shows the Courier substitution, so it's not a ghostview rendering
 problem.

Is the font embedded in the PS file or are there just references to
the font?  Dvips lists the font files it uses on the terminal.  Type 1
fonts can be installed as printer-resident or downloaded with the 
PS file.  If your dvips configuration assumes that the font is
resident when it should be downloaded you will get Courier.
 
 I've upgraded Ghostview to the lates GNU version, and upgraded teTeX to
 the latest snapshot (20020402), to no avail. Any suggestions?

Divide and conquer.  What happens if you use A-Garamond in a PS file
created with something other than TeX?  Ghostscript has some sample
files to print a font table that you can edit (prfont.ps?) to
see if ghostscript can find the font.  There are too many ways to
misconfigure dvips so it reads the wrong configuration files and
it is easy to make a mistake in the configuration files.  The
debugging option can be used to see exactly which files are being 
used.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: inverting ps/pdf

2002-04-24 Thread George White

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Kalyan Mukherjea wrote:

 Hi,
   To resume (briefly) an off-topic query that has elicited a
 number of responses (George White, Krzysztof Leszczynski amongst
 them)--- I had asked of the possibility of a reverse video switch
 (similar  in function to the one in xdvi) for ps and pdf readers.

Just to refresh people's memories, the original query was for an
inverse (white on black) viewing mode which is helpful for 
certain visual impairments and other situations where a light
background can create excessive illumination (in case you ever
need to view a PDF file during a blackout!).

 George had suggested I contact the author of Xpdf --- a
 program I was not aware of. Thanks George! I contacted Derek Noonberg
 and within 3 days he sent me a patch to do this. In fact this will be
 a feature of xpdf-1.01 which Derek plans to release soon. Maybe I
 should also contact the author of gv (but who is he?) or can one
 convert ps to pdf? Xpdf has a pdftops utility but not vice-versa.

Ghostscript has a ps2pdf script which uses the 'pdfwrite' device.  The
pdfwrite device has been improving rapidly, so you want to use a recent
version of ghostscript (7.04), but if the PS were created files with
TeX and dvips, there is a bug that was only recently fixed in dvips
(http://tomas.rokicki.com/gpatch.diff) that can produce incorrect glyphs
when using Adobe fonts and the '-G' option in dvips.  I highly recommend
using the README file accompanying testflow.tex:

CTAN:tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/supported/IEEEtran/testflow/

to make sure your (La)TeX, dvips, and ps2pdf are configured properly,
but of couse this won't help if you download a PS file created with
an older version of dvips.
 
 Finally --- thanks to all the people of the Free software community
 for their unfailing courtesy, patience and willingness to help those
 who need help.
 
 Kalyan

It is nice to hear that things worked out well.  

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: Avoiding dvi files

2002-03-27 Thread George White

On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Helen McCall wrote:

 Having long hated Postscript hacking, I would like to use pdf in my
 programming as well if it is easier. I have the set of Adobe Postscript
 [...]

For a TeX-based workflow, metapost is worth considering.  Metapost
PS files are already flattened and can be translated to PDF without
the need for a full PS interpreter.  Hans Hagen has written TeX macros
to handle this.  His Metafun manual gives lots of examples (using
ConTeXt).

It is also worth noting that PDF pages are essentially Illustrator,
so in principle you could write a macro package to handle Illustrator
PS files.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: PDFLATEX version

2002-01-18 Thread George White

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Mancini Stephane wrote:

 Hi,
 How can I upgrade the pdflatex of the tetex distribution.
 I use tetex-1.0.7-35mdk.i586.rpm from Mandrake.
 
 pdflatex is 13d and I need 14h (or newer) to
 use the pdfpages package.
 
 Do I need to do it by myself ? and how ?
 Or is it scheduled ?

It isn't hard to install a newer pdftex from source.  You can either
replace your current versions or put the updated versions in a new place
(e.g., /usr/local).  You might want to get the 20011202 beta version of
teTeX and install the whole thing -- I've been using it a bit on both
Cygwin and SGI Irix without problems, and last night I installed it on my
home Mandrake system without difficulty (but haven't tested it beyond
building the formats, so there could be some bugs). 

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: [Q] searching for psfonts.map

2001-11-14 Thread George White

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Didier Verna wrote:

But how do you generate good quality PS then ? Is pdf2ps better ?

In the past, we needed good quality PS for typesetters, but these days
we get the best results when we send PDF's to the typesetter.  In 
particular, there are tools that work very well with RGB PDF's.  The
only time we need high quality PS is for EPS figures and images 
when a 3rd party does the typesetting, and these we provide in  
Illstrator or Photoshop format.

Pdf2ps output is not resolution dependent.  There are a few situations
where this could cause artifacts for low resolution devices, but if you
have pdf this may not be important.  There are many tools to get PS from
pdf (pdftops from xpdf, acrobat reader, ghostscript, Illustrator, etc.),
so you should be able to find one that suits your requirements.  If not,
pdf2ps and pdftops are both open source and can be modified to do what you
need.  Ghostscript has a number of PS to PS tools (epswrite, ps2ai.ps) 
that can be used to fix problem PS files. In particular, ps2ai.ps is
easily modified to fix specific problems.

When you really need good PS (e.g., for distiller) from .dvi, YY's
dvipsone is the best tool, but it is commercial and runs on Win32.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: TeTeX on Redhat and shared texmf TeXLive 6

2001-07-12 Thread George White


On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Graham Gough wrote:

 
 This correspondence has prompted me to write on a topic that has
 concerned me for a while. 
 
 Our department's main teaching and research computing resource is now
 provided by a network of Linux machines, running Red Hat, each of
 which has local copies of as much software as possible. We keep them
 up to date by using rpms to update the local copies. This means that
 they are now running the version of teTeX available in the
 tetex-*-1.0.6-11 series of rpms, which are now quite old. Updating
 such a large number of machines without the necessary rpms does not
 appear to be an option. It would appear that, to keep teTeX reasonably
 current, we need to switch to a single, centrally maintained copy. Do
 others have the same problems, or any bright ideas to solve them? 
 
 Thanks
 
 Graham
 
There is a middle ground between keeping systems at a common 
readily available level (e.g., the vendor RPM's for your Linux
distro) and providing access to current packages.  You can use
the TEXMFCNF variable to point to a localized texmf/web2c directory
with the .fmt and .pool files, and maintain a local texmf tree for
newer versions and additions to the vendor supplied tree.

This local stuff can be NFS mounted, with the result that most
of the files will still come from the vendor tree, or copied
to the local machines if NFS performance is a problem.

It can be useful to have access to the vendor-supplied configurations
because so many people at other sites are using them.  It is also
useful to be able to test updates via a texmf-test/web2c directory
before putting them on all your systems.

Unfortunately, there are some issues that go beyond the texmf tree.  Many
TeX documents use the laserwriter 35 fonts, which in practice means the
URW clones from ghostscript.  My Mandrake 7.1 Linux distro provides older
versions of these fonts than the SGI freeware distro at work, but the
texmf trees on both systems have the old versions.  On Mandrake 7.1 linux
the old URW fonts are used by xfs and ghostscript (e.g., to print on a
non-PS printer), so just updating the texmf tree doesn't solve the
problem.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: embedding times for distilling to pdf

2001-07-02 Thread George White


On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, gijs van soest wrote:

 Yep, that did it. It's just that (it turns out) on our system there are
 not the Adobe pfb's but the URW ones, which are called Nimbus, for some
 reason, but look the same. Inclusion of a file named
 acrobat-std-urw-kb.map in the config works (this lowly user unfortunately
 can't edit+run updmap :-( )
 Thanx, Gijs.

You should be aware that the URW fonts are not exactly the same as the
Adobe fonts.  If you are embedding them, however, you will avoid the
problems that arise when different versions of Adobe Acrobat supply
different fonts (e.g., Arial or Helvetica).  We have been burned because
some glyphs, e.g., vert. bar (|) and forward slash (/)  can be confused
when Helvetica-Oblique (a synthetic font) or the URW clone is
substituted for Arial-Italic (a real font). 

There are ways for a user to modify the system configuration.  
If you examine the texmf.cnf file you may find that it supports
a user TEXMF tree that is searched before the system tree
(e.g., ~/texmf).  Failing that, you may be able to use your
own texmf.cnf by setting the TEXMFCNF variable (see the documentation).


--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: teTeX releases

2001-05-25 Thread George White

On Fri, 25 May 2001, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:

 I know the question I am about to ask is one rarely answered, and for
 excellent reasons - but I ask it anyway:
 
 Is there a new teTeX release underway anytime soon?
 
 The present stable release is getting quite old.  We certainly need
 amslatex version 2, for example.  I also have the impression that
 pdftex has been improved quite a bit lately, and it would be nice to
 have a recent version of it.

OTOH, you almost certainly have users who expect to be able to 
regenerate documents written with the old version after minor
changes (e.g., final corrections for publication).

There is a huge difference between updating a TeX macro package and
installing new binaries.  If your TeX system is working properly, you
should be able to update the macro packages without making changes to the
underlying system.  Unless you are on a free  OS, building or installing
new binaries usually involves asking the boss to pay for an OS or compiler
upgrade. 

 Now please don't get me wrong:  I appreciate the ease and convenience
 of installing teTeX, and I also appreciate the longish interval
 between releases, which helps to diminish the pressure to always
 upgrade to the latest version.  But with more than a year since the
 previous release I think maybe the time is ripe for another stable
 release.  (Perhaps after the next LaTeX release, unless June 1 arrives
 very late this year?)

What new capabilities should be present to make teTeX 2 worthwhile?  I'm
hoping that we will be able to get by without PK fonts and use PDF
extensively.  I'm not sure we can do without the EC fonts yet, and Acrobat
5 seems to require a whole new array of workarounds to get past Adobe's
inability to learn from past mistakes -- or is the TeX community
wrong in expecting Acrobat 5 to include bug fixes from earlier versions? 

PDF is still very much of a moving target, so anyone who wants to 
work with PDF needs to be in a position to upgrade early and often.

 If a new stable release is not very likely to happen soon, I'll
 consider the latest beta instead.  What experiences do people have
 with the beta releases?  And do they track stuff like amslatex and
 pdftex well?  My dilemma here is twofold: I maintain teTeX on umpteen
 architectures for our entire university, so I cannot afford a high
 risk of mistakes (an argument in favour of stable releases).  And I
 basically only have the time for major upgrades during the summer
 months, which may be difficult to synchronize with stable releases (an
 argument in favour of beta releases).

The only way we can ever get rid of a TeX distribution is to kill off
the machine it lives on.  Most users learn to work with the quirks of
a particular distribution and don't want anything to change.  When
they are forced to move to a new system they are generally willing
to consider moving to a newer (stable) TeX distribution.  
 
 Any insight, wisdom, or (gasp!) actual information will be very
 welcome indeed.

It is not difficult to layer updates on top of the current stable teTeX
by creating additional texmf trees, each with a web2c/texmf.cnf file.  We
have done this for the SGI freeware distribution of teTeX with relatively
little pain.  To use the updated version users have only to adjust their
PATH and set TEXMFCNF.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: URW fonts

2001-05-01 Thread George White

On Tue, 1 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 [...]
 There are still a lot of people around, particularly in the so-called
 Third World, who are happily running TeX on ancient machines.

Yes, but are any of them using the current version of teTeX with
pdftex and ghostscript?  

 Giuseppe Ghibo' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
 
  How about a revision of the 8+3 KB naming scheme to support more
  characters for more prosaic font names? WDYT?
 
 If a system isn't broken, don't fix it.

The system _is_ broken in the sense that using a current TeX with type 1
fonts requires too many font information tables, making it difficult to
understand and maintain. Since teTeX runs on X and is commonly used with a
PS interpreter, you also have to reconcile the X font names and provide
the font to file mapping for the PS interpreter.  When you encounter a
problem it is often difficult to figure out which file needs to be
changed.  There are many situations where it would be useful to be able to
switch between families (e.g., the original Adobe base 13 fonts as used by
Display PS and Acrobat Reader 3 vs the modified base 13 fonts as used by
Acrobat Reader 4 or the Adobe laserwriter 35 vs the URW clones of
these fonts), or even to know with certainty which of these are actually
being used (since many systems try to be helpful and automatically
substitute fonts without telling us). 

The current font situation is a mess, and really needs a complete
overhaul.  In a well designed system, the actual names of the
font files on disk will appear in exactly one table, and could
easily accomodate a variety of naming schemes.  

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: pdflatex vs. latex | dvips | ps2pdf

2001-04-23 Thread George White

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Clemens Ballarin wrote:

 Thanks for the help on getting dvips to use type 1 fonts!
 
 It turns out that ps2pdf doesn't take advantage of those fonts.  So I
 now use Acrobat's Distiller, which does an excellent job in creating
 both small and high quality pdf files. 
 
 Clemens

Certainly ps2pdf can make good use of Type 1 fonts, so I don't understand
your comment.  Also, there are have been many changes to ghostscript,
which is now at version 7.0, including many improvements to the pdfwrite
device, so bad experiences with some previous version may no longer apply.  

Distiller is certainly more robust than pdfwrite, but a) distiller is not
available for many platforms that can run teTeX, b) many people have tight
budgets and would prefer to spend their funds in other ways, and c)  it is
often much easier to supply student labs with free software than it is
to administer commercial licenses.  Even those who have access to
distiller should periodically check for problems with pdfwrite and file
bug reports as required.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: WG: japan pictures (fwd)

2001-04-21 Thread George White

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Frank Mittelbach wrote:

 Martin,
 
   Frank: Iris is the one I asked about a telephone glyph in latex years
   ago, while hacking my resume.
   [...]
   I'm now thinking that, much as I love that telephone symbol, and as
   much as I enjoyed this hacking session, I'd better keep my document
   portable and viewable and printable, so I'd better leave it out.
 
 wrong. it is portable and viewable only that somehow we have to get proper
 distributions again.
 
 i would recomment you to get you something like texlive which you can
 run from the CD if you like and which does give you a proper system
 (based on tetex) 
 
 that's what i use on various platforms these days without trouble, eg
 hpux solaris linux win2000 win9x ... 

We have to find a way to deal with the different names used in
the X windows fonts/Type1/fonts.scale for ZapfDingbats.  Xpdf
has the name hardcoded.  I guess we need yet another font map
file to map Adobe PDF font names to the ones used in a particular
vendor's X server configuration.  

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: japan pictures

2001-04-20 Thread George White

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Martin Buchholz wrote:

  "T" == Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  (martin@polgar) ~/i/resume $ xdvi tel.dvi
  kpathsea: Running mktexpk --mfmode ljfour --bdpi 600 --mag 1+0/600 --dpi 600 pzdr
  mktexpk: Running gsftopk pzdr 600
  gsftopk(k) version 1.17
  gs: No such file or directory
 
 T You can set up mktexpk to use ps2pk instead of gsftopk (just look at
 T texmf/web2c/mktex.cnf). That way, you do not need gs.  Or, install gs.
 
 Indeed, when used on a system with gs installed, xdvi does work.  This
 is reasonable.  gsftopk might give a more explanatory error message
 (as a naive user I don't understand why xdvi might need to invoke
 ghostscript). 
 
  Amazingly, this actually succeeded in printing a real telephone glyph!
 
 T :-)
 
  But it shouldn't be this hard.

Unfortunately, your experience is all too common.  For many people,
getting teTeX to work seems to be very painful.  As a result, they
become reluctant to make changes to their system.  This means they 
don't install improved versions, bug fixes, etc. (or they give up
on unix and buy Windows NT with YY TeX!).
 
 T Well, for me, it just works. One problem is that you are using a
 T PostScript font without the "default" program that people use to handle
 T PostScript (gs + gv). The other way (ps2pk + xdvi) was not known to
 T you... :-(
 
 T Of course, ps2pk *is* mentioned in TETEXDOC.

The .pk fonts are a major headache.  Ghostscript is rather fragile,
in part because users are forever tweaking environment variables to
change font paths, etc. (e.g., to switch between URW and Adobe versions
of the lw35 fonts, add Japanese, ...).  If you let users generate them
you have problems of world writable directories, etc.  Now that 
xdvi has a type1 rasterizer and we have some decent free fonts that
support LY1 encodings, it may be possible for many people to live
happily without ever using .pk fonts.

If you are using Type 1 fonts, pdf may be less problematic.
I ran pdflatex on the sample file.   Xpdf on SGI Irix gave:
Error: Failed to open font:
'-*-zapfdingbats-medium-r-normal-*-11-*-*-*-*-*-*-*'

Acrobat reader does work, as did gs.
 
 But TETEXDOC is not mentioned on the teTeX Home Page.  I'll go read it
 now.
 
 Like many TeX users, I have one TeX document (my resume) which I
 update every year or two.  So I don't want to spend hours learning.
 I already have my own buggy free software to maintain.

If you are going to use TeX at all, you may find it better in the long
run to use it for everything so that you keep your skills current
and can rely on it in a crunch.  Otherwise you may end up like the
sad people who wander the halls looking for a way to load their old 
WordStar files that won't import into their copy of MS Office.
The TeX files I created using WordStar on a CPM system will still
work with today's teTeX, but many documents I created with the proprietary
word processor du jour are lost forever.

 teTeX was really easy to install - thank you - You've put together a
 great distribution.   I especially like the way that the distribution
 can be installed in any directory.
 
 Perhaps ghostscript and ghostview should be included in the
 distribution.  My memories of the last time I built these programs
 years ago were not altogether pleasant.

This has been discussed before.  A central problem is that the current
version is not GPL'd, and many teTeX users do need (in fact, help to 
create) the new features.  On some systems (SGI) DPS is provided, so
not everyone needs gs.  

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: Ä in dvi file

2000-10-06 Thread George White

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Ronald Warner wrote:

 I am tetex-1.0.6-11 that came with redhat6.2.  after running tex, I 
 would see Ä ( A with the two dots over it) in the dvi file though it is 
 not in the tex file.  We have already studied the tex files but we 
 didn't see anything wrong with it.  Perhaps it is in the tex config, 
 but I am not a regular tex user.  How would I solve this problem?
 
 thanks.

One way to get odd stray characters in a .dvi file is to "\input"
a file that

a) has been edited with a DOS program that puts a ^Z (ASCII 0x1a, 
which is the "ae" ligature in many TeX fonts) character in
to mark "end-of-file", and

b) lacks a \endinput line

Is there an encoding that maps 0x1a to Adieresis? 

Sometimes a file will get corrupted, e.g., after being sent thru
email or edited via a modem session.

To track down the source of such problems you need to narrow down
the search by throwing out \input files and chunks of the document
until the problem goes away.

At this point in time quite a few people are migrating from DOS or OS/2 to
Linux and teTeX, so the "ae" problem is sufficiently common that it
probably should be the teTeX FAQ if it isn't already.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: ConTeXt formats

2000-09-20 Thread George White

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Hans Hagen wrote:

 At 07:02 PM 9/19/00 -0300, George White wrote:
 Note: this thread started out as a discussion of whether the ConTeXt 
 formats should be enabled by default in teTeX.  Behind this is an
 underlying concern that many system administrators will only support
 the default, so if a user wants ConTeXt they will have to create their
 own texmf directory tree (this is, in fact, the situation where I work).
 
 it would safe me some mails if at least the dutch and english formats were
 generated, since they are also used by postprocessing pdf docs with
 texexec, which is useful for latex/plain users too

Certainly a major factor in the decision of whether to enable ConTeXt
formats is the impact on the workload of the key contributers.  Certainly
too, ConTeXt is close to the (well deserved) status of an essential TeX
format, i.e., one that people expect to have available.  If the ConTeXt
formats are enabled in teTeX, the emails asking how to get it working will
be replaced by emails asking why it doesn't work as expected.  The trick
is to organize things in a way that helps shape user expectations to
realistic levels.  

 It would be nice to see ConTeXt used by more people, but I am concerned
 that if it becomes as readily available as plain tex then people will
 assume that it has a similar license, and as a result, violate the license
 unintentionally.  This implies extra workload for TeX gurus who will then
 have to explain to these users that they have to purchase table.tex and
 Lucida fonts in order to compile a document that they brought with them
 from their previous school or obtained from a colleague. 
 
 The plain licence is rather restrictive -) 
 
 Just to repeat: you don't have to buy anything, table is as free as pictex,
 but for both the manuals are sold, but not needed. Also, there are already
 two replacements for tables in context [three mechanisms now] so people can
 avoid table when in doubt. 

It should be relatively easy to provide an informative message when a
ConTeXt user tries to use "table.tex" -- perhaps just a dummy file that
prints a warning message "You are attempting to use the table.tex package,
which does not appear to be properly installed on your system.  See ..."
 
 Concerning lucida, there are free versions, but in general, people don't
 need them. The fact that i default to them in some of the presentation
 styles is history. I can change that if needed. Also, 
 
 \definefilesynonym[font-lbr][font-cmr]   % or [font-pos]
 
 will map all lucida defs to computer modern or 15 ps fonts, 
 
 there is really no problem there. 

Appearances will suffer if you just do a straight replacement of lbr with
cmr or pos.  

The problem is that the user doesn't get helpful feedback if they try to
use lbr under the impression that it should work.  It would be better if
the system can be organized so that anyone who trys the presentation
styles or the pdftex manual and doesn't have Lucida fonts will get a 
helpful explanation at the earliest possible stage.

The "missing commercial fonts" problem occurs quite frequently with LaTeX,
and is going to get messier as more people try to use Belleek, LucidaSO,
or other free, but more limited, substitutes for commercial font packages
(since users will encounter documents that were generated without error
but don't display as expected).

Updmap could warn of missing font files as it processes the maps, but
there is still a big difference between TeX and pdfTeX.  Some people
happily create .dvi files that use fonts they don't have, and switch to a
system that has the fonts when they need hardcopy.  Maybe updmap can have
a flag that controls whether the generated map files can refer to missing
fonts. 

Rather than the current "invisible" substitutions that are used for
Belleek, the substitutions be made "explicit" as in
\usepackage[belleek]{mathtime}.  

In my experience, many ConTeXt early adopters do have both table.tex and
the Lucida fonts from YY, so new users and users new to teTeX both stand
a good chance of encountering documents that use these.  
 
 Hans
 -
   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
   Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
 ---------
 

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: ConTeXt formats

2000-09-20 Thread George White

Note: this thread started out as a discussion of whether the ConTeXt 
formats should be enabled by default in teTeX.  Behind this is an
underlying concern that many system administrators will only support
the default, so if a user wants ConTeXt they will have to create their
own texmf directory tree (this is, in fact, the situation where I work).
I think some other distributions (4TeX 5?) either enable ConTeXt by
default or at least make it quite easy for users to enable ConTeXt thru
a configuration menu.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Thomas Esser wrote:

 Dear George,
 
  1) ConTeXt requires the table macro package, which AFAIK is not free, viz.
  licen-en.pdf
  
  [3.5] This licence does not apply to components of the official version
  that are provided by third parties. 
   
  2) The license says the sources are GPL's, but adds constraints on how you
  can use ConTeXt, viz
  
  [5.3] Because the manuals provided by Pragma ADE are also examples of what
  can be done by ConTeXt, their layout is bound to these documents. In
  large this also applies to the whole ConTeXt demonstration suite.
  Additional, third party documentation, therefore may not use the same
  layout characteristics, like graphics (and tricks), unless permission is
  granted.
 
 I know Hans very well and the change from the old very restrictive
 license to the better GPL was mostly triggered by discussions that I
 had with Hans. I am quite sure that if you tell Hans that his license
 has contradictions and unacceptable restrictions (from the free software
 point of view), he'll most propably change that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the ConTeXt license.  From my
viewpoint, the two practical issues are a) third party ingredients such as
the Lucida fonts and table.tex, and b) the entirely reasonable desire to
preserve rights to _designs_ of documents created with ConTeXt.  Hans has
no control over third party licenses, so I can't fault him there.

In the past, most TeX documents have tried to achieve uniformity of
design, and have not attempted to be innovative.  Now we are starting to
see TeX used in innovative ways.  Particularly in the case of ConTeXt,
where innovative designs are likely to be tightly coupled to ConTeXt
macros (for which we have the sources!), it may not be hard to mimic a
design.  I'm all in favor of innovation, and the ConTeXt license
encourages that by making the tools open (as opposed to keeping them a
trade secret) and then asking that you not just copy designs without 
getting permission, which might encourage some people to make their own
designs.  
 
 It seems like you understand the current Context licence better than me.
 Would you please be so kind to get in touch with Hans and discuss this
 with him?
 
 Thomas

It would be nice to see ConTeXt used by more people, but I am concerned
that if it becomes as readily available as plain tex then people will
assume that it has a similar license, and as a result, violate the license
unintentionally.  This implies extra workload for TeX gurus who will then
have to explain to these users that they have to purchase table.tex and
Lucida fonts in order to compile a document that they brought with them
from their previous school or obtained from a colleague. 

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: ConTeXt formats

2000-09-18 Thread George White

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Thomas Esser wrote:

  Is there a reason why the context formats are commented out in the
  fmtutil.cnf file?  I'm sure that uncommenting it in the tetex
 
 Yes. I restrict teTeX to the formats which I consider "basic". These are
 plain and latex. I might change my view with respect of context so day...
 
 Thomas

There are some restrictions in the ConTeXt license, so it is probably
better to require that someone (presumably one who has read the
documentation!) has to explicitly enable ConTeXt.   

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: thumbnail problem

2000-06-11 Thread George White

On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, NDQ wrote:

 Hi,
 Sorry for this message "non related directly to teTeX"
 
 I use "thumbpdf" 1.4 (come with teTeX 1.0.6 under RH6.1).
 I have an article (9 pages). After running pdflatex
 (3.14159-14f-released-2525) on my article.tex, I got PDF file. This
 PDF can be viewed with AR4.0 without any prob.
 
 Now I try :
 
 $ thumbpdf article
 
 And I got error :
 
 [quy] ~/tex/article$ thumbpdf article
 THUMBPDF 1.4, 22.04.1999 - Copyright (c) 1999 by Heiko Oberdiek.
 [...]

The current version is 2.4, from CTAN (tex-archive/support):

$ thumbpdf sample2e   
THUMBPDF 2.4, 2000/04/10 - Copyright (c) 1999, 2000 by Heiko Oberdiek.
*** make png files / run Ghostscript ***
...

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia




Re: OT: Vector graphics in pdfTeX

2000-04-08 Thread George White

On 8 Apr 2000, Sascha [ISO-8859-1] Lüdecke wrote:

 
 Hi all!
 
 I normally make my graphics with xfig since it produces nice vector
 output which can be scaled easily within latex.  Now I want to switch
 to pdfTeX and recognized, that xfig always uses \special{} with
 postscript commands, which are not understood by PDF (AFAIK).
 
 Is there any conversion tool which transforms my .fig into something
 scalabe?  I know I can import png and alike, but this is pixel based.
 Or did I miss anything?
 
 This may be offtopic.  Anyhow, I would be glad, if you can point me to
 the right location.
 
 Sascha

I've found very few problems converting to pdftex, thanks to a
long-standing policy of putting all figures into Illustrator format with
fonts replaced by outline paths.  In our work, the same basic figure is
often used for publications, slides, and overheads.  It is often necessary
to change notation, etc.  Using Illustrator, I can combine elements from
several figures, revise annotations, etc.  Most publishers like to get .ai
format figures. 

You can place metapost or pdf vector art in pdftex documents.  Aladdin
Ghostscript ver 6.x with the pstoedit front-end can generate either pdf
or metapost from many PS files, but since it is easier to view pdf
I prefer that format.  

You can continue to make figures exactly as you did before.  Create a .tex
file with one figure on each page and no captions or page numbers.  Then
create EPS files using "dvips -E" configured for Type1 fonts and a high
resolution (I find 1440 works well, but some people use higher values). 
There are two resolution-dependent problems with dvips using outline
fonts: a) spacing in text, and b) rules may be rendered as images.  If
your figures are missing rules, you can edit the dvips file to ensure that
rules are drawn using vector operators.  

I find a multi-step conversion works best:

1.  pstoedit -psarg -dNOCACHE -f gs:epswrite figNN.eps tmp.eps

You should get a font-free file that looks identical to the 
input file (on a high-res device).

2.  pstoedit -f pstoai tmp.eps figNN.ai  rm tmp.eps

Again, the .ai file should look identical to the input.

3.  tweak figNN.ai using Illustrator, adjust origin to the lower-left
corner (is this still required??).  If you don't have a drawing 
program, you can edit the PS file to translate the figure so the
bounding box origin is (0,0). 

4.  pstopdf fiNN.ai figNN.pdf

Again, the .pdf file should look identical to the input.

The .ai file is actually PostScript, but some PS interpreters will give
an "invalidrestore" error (I can provide a patch if anyone else encounters
this one).  

When fonts are converted to outline paths, text won't look a nice on the
screen, but will be fine on a high-resolution device.  For color (or
greyscale) devices, a good anti-aliased render is crucial.  Until
recently, I used a Photoshop plug-in called Epilogue that contained a full
level2 PS interpreter with excellent anti-aliasing, but this product is no
longer available.  To get comparable quality with ghostscript I render a
4x oversampling and downsize in Photoshop.  Maybe someday font technology
will make it possible to keep fonts in figures, but at present there are
still too many problems getting fonts work properly in multiple platforms
and applications.

--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia