RE: PostScript docs from DVI or PDF?
"Atwood, Robert C" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.debugging.ddd.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I've noticed that some TeX distributions "helpfully" replace some standard LaTeX or TeX with pdfTeX versions of the same command, which is not so good if you actually want the dvi. Eg, the output below from my cygwin default installation of TeTex. I only just notice this the other day, I am not a huge TeX user (yet) but I like to get what I ask for so I noticed this odd behaviour when trying to create some cross-platform documentation (did't use texinfo but maybe I should? ) I don't know if this is causing your problem but it's a possibility. robert@mycomputer ~ $ latex This is pdfeTeXk, Version 3.141592-1.21a-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.4) file:line:error style messages enabled. %&-line parsing enabled. ** By the way, I really like the debuggable make, whatever you wind up calling it. I have not actually tried it linked into ddd so far, though I found out about it from this list ... just the command line use has provided me with the tools I was needing. Thanks for developing this. Robert -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of R. Bernstein Sent: 05 January 2006 12:29 To: [email protected] Subject: PostScript docs from DVI or PDF? A while back I mentioned that my texi2dvi seemed to produce a pdf rather than dvi for reasons I don't understand. In the test releases (under the bashdb project), I had just hacked the ddd/Makefile to use pdf2ps rather than dvips. But do others have this problem? Any comments on using pdf2ps rather than the route via DVI? _______________________________________________ Ddd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ddd