But please test the following change (I don't know whether it
is related to the problem).
I installed this change in TL, since it's obviously desirable,
independent of the present bug. (I gather it didn't help.)
More later, I hope.
Thanks,
k
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
On Don, 03 Mai 2007, Akira Kakuto wrote:
> But please test the following change (I don't know whether it
> is related to the problem).
Unfortunately this didn't help, I double checked.
Best wishes
Norbert
---
Dr. Norber
> We found a bug that *was* fixed in some prior dvips version, but later
> not:
[...]
I'm on Windows and I don't have the wrong behavior
for the Bug#266718.
But please test the following change (I don't know whether it
is related to the problem).
Thanks,
Akira
--- header.c.orig Fri Dec 08
Dear Kakuto-san,
On Mit, 02 Mai 2007, Akira Kakuto wrote:
> This change (2005 --> 2007) was made by Karl after
> the release of TeXLive 2007. My sources are ones in the present svn.
Ok.
> Changes made after the release of TeXLive 2007 are not
> related to the main output.
>
> Therefore I think
Hi Frank,
> > -%%Creator: dvips(k) 5.96 Copyright 2005 Radical Eye Software
> > +%%Creator: dvips(k) 5.96 Copyright 2007 Radical Eye Software
>
> This looks suspiciously as if the source had been changed without
> adjusting the version number.
This change (2005 --> 2007) was made by Karl after
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I diffed the created ps files and couldn't find any big difference:
> diff -u my-test.ps akira-test.ps
> (excerpt, there were more (like creation date, and the included font).
>
>
> -%%Creator: dvips(k) 5.96 Copyright 2005 Radical Eye Software
>
Hi Norbert,
> > Please compare my fig.0 and yours.
>
> No diffs but the Creation Date
Thanks. I believe "my sources" == "texlive sources" but
I'll investigate if there are differences.
In this case, my dvips creates the same result
for
dvips -Ppdf -j1 test
and
dvips -Ppdf -j0 test
Usually the d
On Mit, 02 Mai 2007, Akira Kakuto wrote:
> Please compare my fig.0 and yours.
No diffs but the Creation Date
Best wishes
Norbert
---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Università di Siena
Debian
Hi Norbert,
> I diffed the created ps files and couldn't find any big difference:
> diff -u my-test.ps akira-test.ps
> (excerpt, there were more (like creation date, and the included font).
Differences are not essential ones. (I'm using dpi=9600 in -Ppdf and
'ASCII patched' headers.)
Please
Dear Kakuto-san,
thanks for taking a look at this, but ..
On Mit, 02 Mai 2007, Akira Kakuto wrote:
> In such a case, font is fully downloaded irrespective of -j0 and -j1
> in the fixed dvips, and 5.96 is a fixed one.
> I cannot reproduce the bug. See the attached zip file,
> which contains fig.mp
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:13:43AM +0900, Akira Kakuto wrote:
> Hi Norbert,
>
> > We found a bug that *was* fixed in some prior dvips version, but later
> > not: The problem is to make it short:
> > If a font is used in an included eps AND in the main document, AND is
> > only partially downloaded
Hi all TeX-k and TeX Live Masters!
We found a bug that *was* fixed in some prior dvips version, but later
not: The problem is to make it short:
If a font is used in an included eps AND in the main document, AND is
only partially downloaded, some glyphs can be missing in the eps file.
Test documen
On 30.04.07 Dylan Thurston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:12:27AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> > On 30.04.07 Dylan Thurston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
> > > This bug seems to never have been fixed in TeXlive.
> > >
> > Which version of dvips is contained in texlive
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:12:27AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> On 30.04.07 Dylan Thurston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > This bug seems to never have been fixed in TeXlive.
> >
> Which version of dvips is contained in texlive-base-bin ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dvips --version
dvips(k) 5.96
kpa
reassign 266718 texlive-base-bin
stop
On 30.04.07 Dylan Thurston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This bug seems to never have been fixed in TeXlive.
>
Which version of dvips is contained in texlive-base-bin ?
Dylan, on Mon, 7 Feb 2005 I found out, that the version of dvips in
teTeX-beta fixed the
reopen 266718
assign 266718 texlive-base-bin
found 266718 2007-4
thanks
This bug seems to never have been fixed in TeXlive.
--Dylan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
16 matches
Mail list logo
