Re: [2.96.1] problem: latex generates pdf rather than dvi

Reinhard Kotucha <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.tex.tetex.beta
Message-ID <[email protected]>
>>>>> "Frank" == Frank Küster <[email protected]> writes:

    >> Yes, but I suppose that most problems come from macro packages.
    >> They have to be fixed anyway.  As far as the documents are
    >> cocerned, it is not much more work to fix the bugs than to add
    >> \usepackage{dvi}.

    > Oh yes, it is. It's even easier to say "dvilatex" or "latex
    > --dvionly". But for sure "latex
    > '\input{dvi.sty}\input{broken.tex}' is easier than 

Assume that someone writes a package described by David.  If then
someone really does not want to fix the bugs in his documents, he is
free to write a little sh-script (called dvilatex) like this:

--------------------
#!/bin/sh
latex "\AtEndOfClass{\usepackage{dvi}\input{$1}"
--------------------

Beware, this is not tested!  

I strictly recommend not to distribute such a file.  Just checking
whether \pdfoutput exists and ignoring its value has been as long as
pdfTeX exists.  If such a program exists, people will use it for
writing new (buggy) documents.

I hate programs that are error tolerant.  So I do not think that it's
a good idea to provide a macro package like dvi.sty.  

    > making a copy
    > of the document on a rw filesystem, opening it in an editor, and
    > searching for _all_ places where packages or the author himself
    > did things wrong. Even more funny when the document uses some
    > \input or \include calls.

Packages should not be fixed by users.  Users usually do not have
their document sources on read-only file sytems.  People who are doing
tricky things are familiar with tools like grep.  There is no need to
open each file in an editor.

What you describe is a "worst case scenario".  Why should anyone put
tex sources on a read-only file system?  And why should they then
want to recreate the pdf or dvi files again?

If you talk about buggy macro packages, they must be fixed anyway.
And there had been no official teTeX release in the past which
contained packages with known bugs.

Regards,
  Reinhard

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhard Kotucha			              Phone: +49-511-4592165
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover	                      mailto:[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.