On Thu, 11 May 2006, Hans Hagen wrote:
? wrote:
One remark for the texexec developer: it seems, when searching for
executables, the order in $PATH is not respected. For example: I had
/opt/teTeX/bin/dvips and /usr/bin/dvips and PATH=/opt/teTeX/bin:...
but it was /usr/bin/dvips that was called to create the PS-file.
hm, i just call dvips -)
I think, I must have made a mistake somewhere, since I cannot reproduce
this behaviour.
But there is another problem with the following test file:
%%% This needed to get upright \textmu:
\setupencoding[default=texnansi]
\usetypescript[modern-base][\defaultencoding]
\setupbodyfont[modern]
%%%
\starttext
bla and \textmu
\stoptext
When running "texexec --dvi test", the output of dvips is
This is dvips(k) 5.95a Copyright 2005 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com)
' TeX output 2006.05.13:1508' -> test.ps
. [1]
and the PostScript page is completely empty (blanc).
When running "dvips -u +original-base -u +ec-public-lm -u +ec-base -u
+8r-base -u +t5-base -u +original-ams-base -u +original-ams-euler -u
+original-public-lm -u +texnansi-base -u +texnansi-public-lm test" (same
command is used by texexec), the output of dvips is
This is dvips(k) 5.95a Copyright 2005 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com)
' TeX output 2006.05.13:1510' -> test.ps
. [1]
and the PostScript file has an ugly font and nothing for \textmu.
When running "dvips test", the output of dvips is
This is dvips(k) 5.95a Copyright 2005 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com)
' TeX output 2006.05.13:1510' -> test.ps
. [1]
and the PostScript file is ok.
So here my questions:
- Why does texexec use these options for dvips?
- Where can I tell texexec to use just "dvips" without options?
- Why is there a difference between running dvips by texexec or by command
line, does texexec modify perhaps the environment?
- Why do I have this behaviour only with texnansi but not with ec encoding?
Cheers, Peter
--
http://pmrb.free.fr/contact/
