Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Which makefile version are you using?
Original comment by shib...@google.com
on 4 Nov 2010 at 1:19
2.2.0-rc5
Original comment by veranopl...@gmail.com
on 4 Nov 2010 at 9:19
Ah. I have to admit, you're the first person I've heard of to use 2.2.0 for a
dvips workflow, which is probably why you found a bug with it :)
Thanks for submitting the bug. Now, to make sure I understand everything
you're telling me, can you help clarify a few things that confused me about
this?
- It seems like you don't want -Ppdf for dvips, since it really should be
producing postscript output, right? You probably want dvips to read config.ps,
so -Pps is more appropriate here.
- Which documentclass are you using? Is it something that doesn't understand
letterpaper? If it does, the makefile should extract that and pass the
appropriate option to dvips.
When you say that the paper size is defined in the style file, do you mean that
it is requiring something like the geometry package and setting it there? In
that case, *also* specifying it in the documentclass is how I have gotten
around things like that in the past.
The old makefile used to support a special %%PAPERSIZE comment, which would let
you specify things like %%PAPERSIZE=letter. Ultimately I discarded that
because it meant a lot of repetition. However, we could add it back in as an
optional way of specifying paper size - I don't think it would be too hard to
do.
Finally, in order to get the dvips -> ps2pdf behavior, you had to set a
variable in the makefile. Should we just make dvips options available as such
a variable, too? Then you could do relatively arbitrary things to it....
Anyway, lots of thoughts. Let me know what you think.
Original comment by shiblon
on 5 Nov 2010 at 2:11
Thanks for your reply.
I am writing paper using the journal's template. Because the figures are all in
EPS format, I chose the traditional dvips method to produce PDF files. I don't
know much about how dvips works, but I was told the -Ppdf option to dvips was
required to make it include Type 1 (scalable) fonts in the PS file.
I think the easiest way to express the problem I have is to give an example.
The latex template and the style file from the journal are attached. When I
make it with your makefile, the top margin appears too small. But if I use
dvips -t letter -Ppdf -G0 agutmpl.dvi -o
ps2pdf agutmpl.ps
The top margin shows correctly. Thanks.
Original comment by veranopl...@gmail.com
on 6 Nov 2010 at 3:46
Attachments:
Two things:
1) You can just convert the .eps files to .pdf and then include them (without
specifying the .pdf extension) in your document. Then you can use the default
and better tested pdflatex toolchain.
2) I'm having a hard time reproducing your problem :(. I tried compiling it as
you sent it, and with the (ignored by the class file) "letterpaper" option in
the documentclass. I used
make BUILD_STRATEGY=latex agutmpl
and got the same result both times. I also built the .dvi file both ways and
ran dvips with the -tletter option and didn't see any difference in margins.
3) I actually went to great lengths to make sure that, even if you are only
building to .ps, all fonts are embedded. I use 'gs' directly to create the
.pdf file from the .ps file, and have verified that fonts are embedded. If
they aren't, that's a bug, so I'd definitely like to know if that isn't
happening.
Original comment by shiblon
on 7 Nov 2010 at 1:46
It is true that using the pdflatex gives correct pdf file. One solution, as you
said, is convert all the eps files to the formats pdflatex accepts.
When using latex, however, the dvi and ps files look the same as those created
by pdflatex. But the pdf files are different (attached). Did you look at the
pdf files? I used
BUILD_STRATEGY ?= latex
to create the agutmpl_latex.pdf file.
BTW, I am using redhat EL5. If you cannot reproduce the problem, is that
because you are using different version of linux?
Original comment by veranopl...@gmail.com
on 10 Nov 2010 at 1:37
Attachments:
Yes, I looked at the pdf output for both toolchains. What LaTeX distribution
is used by RHEL5? I'm using TexLive 2010, and I'm guessing that the version of
ghostscript is different (I have GPL Ghostscript 8.70).
Either way, if using the pdflatex toolchain (with .eps converted to .pdf) works
for you, I would just go with that.
Original comment by shiblon
on 11 Nov 2010 at 2:59
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
veranopl...@gmail.com
on 3 Nov 2010 at 9:05