GNU bug report logs -
#44578
incompability between preview and hyperref in latex 2020-10-01
Previous Next
To reply to this bug, email your comments to 44578 AT debbugs.gnu.org.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:31:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Ulrike Fischer <news3 <at> nililand.de>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org.
(Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:31:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hello,
the following document works fine with older latex but fails with
latex 2020-10-01 when compile with latex-dvips-ps2pdf:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage [active,tightpage]{preview}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\makeatletter
%\ifPreview
% \let\Hy <at> FirstPageHook\relax
% \let\Hy <at> EveryPageAnchor\relax
%\fi
\makeatother
\begin {document}
\showoutput
\begin {preview}
abc
\end {preview}
\end {document}
latex + dvips compiles fine, but ps2pdf errors:
Error: /typecheck in --div--
Operand stack:
1 0 0.0016874 -0.000881703 a 65781.8
The problem is the postscript code inserted by hyperref with the two
commands in the commented part of the example: due to the changes in
the latex shipout code, the code is inserted even if preview is
active and ghostscript doesn't like it.
For now it if probably easiest to disable the hooks as shown,
but the code in hyperref will at some time switch to the new latex
hooks and then perhaps some other solution is needed.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Ulrike Fischer
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sun, 17 Jan 2021 05:59:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi David,
Could you please take care of bug#44578[1], reported by Ulrike Fischer?
It seems that that bug is responsible for bug#45894, skimming over the
correspondence between Tobias and Ulrike[2].
In addition, the following simple document fails at preview-latex when
TeX-PDF-mode is nil and preview-image-type is `png', although I'm not
sure whether this is related or not. (The two math fragments "\(a\)" and
"\(b\)" both don't render as images but instead "Do not enter" signs
appear beside them.)
In summary, it seems that latex+dvips+gs has low compatibility with
preview.sty by recent changes in LaTeX core.
Best regards,
Ikumi Keita
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tikz}
\begin{document}
\begin{itemize}
\item \(a\)
\item \(b\)
\end{itemize}
% pdflatex+pdf2dsc+gs OK
% latex+dvipng OK
% latex+dvips+gs NG
\end{document}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/44578
[2] https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/570404/pdflatex-fails-on-pstool-when-hyperref-is-included
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Dear Sir or Madam,
> I reported a bug on github, and the maintainers advised me to inform the
> authors of preview-latex:
> <https://github.com/latex3/hyperref/issues/166> pdfLaTeX fails on pstool
> when hyperref is included · Issue #166 · latex3/hyperref (github.com). The
> original bug report, a minimum example and all needed files are posted
> there.
> I would be absolutely willing to support the clarification of the issue.
> Please inform me how to formally submit the bug report.
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Tobias Bruckmann
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sun, 17 Jan 2021 12:48:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Thanks!
Please let me know in case I can support the clarification of the bug.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Januar 2021 06:58
An: dak <at> gnu.org
Cc: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org;
44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: Re: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
Hi David,
Could you please take care of bug#44578[1], reported by Ulrike Fischer?
It seems that that bug is responsible for bug#45894, skimming over the
correspondence between Tobias and Ulrike[2].
In addition, the following simple document fails at preview-latex when
TeX-PDF-mode is nil and preview-image-type is `png', although I'm not sure
whether this is related or not. (The two math fragments "\(a\)" and "\(b\)"
both don't render as images but instead "Do not enter" signs appear beside
them.)
In summary, it seems that latex+dvips+gs has low compatibility with
preview.sty by recent changes in LaTeX core.
Best regards,
Ikumi Keita
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tikz}
\begin{document}
\begin{itemize}
\item \(a\)
\item \(b\)
\end{itemize}
% pdflatex+pdf2dsc+gs OK
% latex+dvipng OK
% latex+dvips+gs NG
\end{document}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/44578
[2]
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/570404/pdflatex-fails-on-pstool-when
-hyperref-is-included
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Dear Sir or Madam,
> I reported a bug on github, and the maintainers advised me to inform
> the authors of preview-latex:
> <https://github.com/latex3/hyperref/issues/166> pdfLaTeX fails on
> pstool when hyperref is included · Issue #166 · latex3/hyperref
> (github.com). The original bug report, a minimum example and all
> needed files are posted there.
> I would be absolutely willing to support the clarification of the issue.
> Please inform me how to formally submit the bug report.
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Tobias Bruckmann
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sun, 17 Jan 2021 12:59:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Frankly, I have a problem seeing a sensible fix for "Hyperref chose to
mess with LaTeX internals in its own exclusive way incompatible with
anybody else trying to change behavior, even when done in the exactly
same manner, but will likely change doing this to a different way soon".
"Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Thanks!
> Please let me know in case I can support the clarification of the bug.
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Januar 2021 06:58
> An: dak <at> gnu.org
> Cc: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org;
> 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Betreff: Re: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
>
> Hi David,
>
> Could you please take care of bug#44578[1], reported by Ulrike Fischer?
> It seems that that bug is responsible for bug#45894, skimming over the
> correspondence between Tobias and Ulrike[2].
>
> In addition, the following simple document fails at preview-latex when
> TeX-PDF-mode is nil and preview-image-type is `png', although I'm not sure
> whether this is related or not. (The two math fragments "\(a\)" and "\(b\)"
> both don't render as images but instead "Do not enter" signs appear beside
> them.)
>
> In summary, it seems that latex+dvips+gs has low compatibility with
> preview.sty by recent changes in LaTeX core.
>
> Best regards,
> Ikumi Keita
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{tikz}
>
> \begin{document}
>
> \begin{itemize}
> \item \(a\)
> \item \(b\)
> \end{itemize}
>
> % pdflatex+pdf2dsc+gs OK
> % latex+dvipng OK
> % latex+dvips+gs NG
>
> \end{document}
>
> %%% Local Variables:
> %%% mode: latex
> %%% TeX-master: t
> %%% End:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/44578
> [2]
> https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/570404/pdflatex-fails-on-pstool-when
> -hyperref-is-included
>
>>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
>> Dear Sir or Madam,
>> I reported a bug on github, and the maintainers advised me to inform
>> the authors of preview-latex:
>
>> <https://github.com/latex3/hyperref/issues/166> pdfLaTeX fails on
>> pstool when hyperref is included · Issue #166 · latex3/hyperref
>> (github.com). The original bug report, a minimum example and all
>> needed files are posted there.
>
>> I would be absolutely willing to support the clarification of the issue.
>> Please inform me how to formally submit the bug report.
>
>> Thanks and best wishes,
>
>> Tobias Bruckmann
>
--
David Kastrup
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sat, 23 Jan 2021 13:07:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear all,
is there anything I can do from user side? I am no programmer, but let me
know in case I can help.
Will there be some bug tracking to follow any debugging process?
Thanks and best wishes,
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Januar 2021 13:59
An: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>
Cc: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org;
44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: Re: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
Frankly, I have a problem seeing a sensible fix for "Hyperref chose to mess
with LaTeX internals in its own exclusive way incompatible with anybody else
trying to change behavior, even when done in the exactly same manner, but
will likely change doing this to a different way soon".
"Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Thanks!
> Please let me know in case I can support the clarification of the bug.
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Januar 2021 06:58
> An: dak <at> gnu.org
> Cc: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>;
> 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Betreff: Re: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
>
> Hi David,
>
> Could you please take care of bug#44578[1], reported by Ulrike Fischer?
> It seems that that bug is responsible for bug#45894, skimming over the
> correspondence between Tobias and Ulrike[2].
>
> In addition, the following simple document fails at preview-latex when
> TeX-PDF-mode is nil and preview-image-type is `png', although I'm not
> sure whether this is related or not. (The two math fragments "\(a\)" and
"\(b\)"
> both don't render as images but instead "Do not enter" signs appear
> beside
> them.)
>
> In summary, it seems that latex+dvips+gs has low compatibility with
> preview.sty by recent changes in LaTeX core.
>
> Best regards,
> Ikumi Keita
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{tikz}
>
> \begin{document}
>
> \begin{itemize}
> \item \(a\)
> \item \(b\)
> \end{itemize}
>
> % pdflatex+pdf2dsc+gs OK
> % latex+dvipng OK
> % latex+dvips+gs NG
>
> \end{document}
>
> %%% Local Variables:
> %%% mode: latex
> %%% TeX-master: t
> %%% End:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/44578
> [2]
> https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/570404/pdflatex-fails-on-pstoo
> l-when
> -hyperref-is-included
>
>>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
>> Dear Sir or Madam,
>> I reported a bug on github, and the maintainers advised me to inform
>> the authors of preview-latex:
>
>> <https://github.com/latex3/hyperref/issues/166> pdfLaTeX fails on
>> pstool when hyperref is included · Issue #166 · latex3/hyperref
>> (github.com). The original bug report, a minimum example and all
>> needed files are posted there.
>
>> I would be absolutely willing to support the clarification of the issue.
>> Please inform me how to formally submit the bug report.
>
>> Thanks and best wishes,
>
>> Tobias Bruckmann
>
--
David Kastrup
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sun, 24 Jan 2021 06:00:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Tobias,
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> is there anything I can do from user side? I am no programmer, but let me
> know in case I can help.
All I can think of is to keep an old TeX distribution separately from
the latest one.
You can obtain old distributions from https://www.tug.org/historic/ .
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:18:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear all,
I am not sure whether the status of my bug report:
Is there any chance this will be resolved, or is it only of minor relevance?
I would be grateful for any quick comment...
Thanks and best wishes,
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Bruckmann, Tobias
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Januar 2021 13:47
An: 'Ikumi Keita' <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>; dak <at> gnu.org
Cc: 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
Thanks!
Please let me know in case I can support the clarification of the bug.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Januar 2021 06:58
An: dak <at> gnu.org
Cc: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org;
44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: Re: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
Hi David,
Could you please take care of bug#44578[1], reported by Ulrike Fischer?
It seems that that bug is responsible for bug#45894, skimming over the
correspondence between Tobias and Ulrike[2].
In addition, the following simple document fails at preview-latex when
TeX-PDF-mode is nil and preview-image-type is `png', although I'm not sure
whether this is related or not. (The two math fragments "\(a\)" and "\(b\)"
both don't render as images but instead "Do not enter" signs appear beside
them.)
In summary, it seems that latex+dvips+gs has low compatibility with
preview.sty by recent changes in LaTeX core.
Best regards,
Ikumi Keita
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tikz}
\begin{document}
\begin{itemize}
\item \(a\)
\item \(b\)
\end{itemize}
% pdflatex+pdf2dsc+gs OK
% latex+dvipng OK
% latex+dvips+gs NG
\end{document}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/44578
[2]
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/570404/pdflatex-fails-on-pstool-when
-hyperref-is-included
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Dear Sir or Madam,
> I reported a bug on github, and the maintainers advised me to inform
> the authors of preview-latex:
> <https://github.com/latex3/hyperref/issues/166> pdfLaTeX fails on
> pstool when hyperref is included · Issue #166 · latex3/hyperref
> (github.com). The original bug report, a minimum example and all
> needed files are posted there.
> I would be absolutely willing to support the clarification of the issue.
> Please inform me how to formally submit the bug report.
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Tobias Bruckmann
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sun, 14 Feb 2021 19:32:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Tobias,
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> I am not sure whether the status of my bug report:
> Is there any chance this will be resolved, or is it only of minor relevance?
I'm sorry to say this, but I can't help. It requires mature knowledge
about TeX programming and Postscript language to deal with this issue. I
have neither one.
As I told before, I'd just recomend to keep an old TeX distribution
separately to typeset your documents. That's only workaround I can think
of.
Best regards,
Ikumi Keita
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:48:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #29 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Ikumi, David
this is a bad situation. I am quite surprised I am the first (and only?) one
to stumble across this:
- Most scientific works use vector EPS graphics. psfrag is extremely popular
in this field.
- Most works are published in PDF
- You can't get around hyperref
The combination of pstool and pdfLaTeX seems to be the most promising
approach to me to join these points in one toolchain. Living with an old
version might work for some months, but this can't be the future.
So there's no pathway and this toolchain is dead forever?
Thanks for your appreciated comment,
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. Februar 2021 20:32
An: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>
Cc: dak <at> gnu.org; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: Re: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
Hi Tobias,
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> I am not sure whether the status of my bug report:
> Is there any chance this will be resolved, or is it only of minor
relevance?
I'm sorry to say this, but I can't help. It requires mature knowledge about
TeX programming and Postscript language to deal with this issue. I have
neither one.
As I told before, I'd just recomend to keep an old TeX distribution
separately to typeset your documents. That's only workaround I can think of.
Best regards,
Ikumi Keita
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Wed, 24 Feb 2021 23:59:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #32 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
"Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Hi Ikumi, David
>
> this is a bad situation. I am quite surprised I am the first (and only?) one
> to stumble across this:
> - Most scientific works use vector EPS graphics. psfrag is extremely popular
> in this field.
> - Most works are published in PDF
> - You can't get around hyperref
>
> The combination of pstool and pdfLaTeX seems to be the most promising
> approach to me to join these points in one toolchain. Living with an old
> version might work for some months, but this can't be the future.
>
> So there's no pathway and this toolchain is dead forever?
>
> Thanks for your appreciated comment,
So what are you willing to invest to avert the catastrophe? In terms of
procuring code or paying for the time of those who do?
--
David Kastrup
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 25 Feb 2021 06:45:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #35 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear David,
this is a good question. I didn't want to push but just point out the relevance of the issue, believing that you feel a personal appreciation (and/or certain responsibility) for a code you officially maintain.
If I had the expertise to fix the code on my own, I would not have spent the time to find and bother you, but better invest it to produce the solution and propose it to you.
If you ask for money - that could be a problem. I have no idea on the time needed to find the problem, to fix and to test it. Hiring a professional is probably beyond my budget as I am just an academics. As such, I am volunteering as well in multiple matters, trying to improve things - so I think when it comes to projects driven by enthusiastism, I share your engagement, but I don't think that a spirit of needing individual payments will lead to a better future for open source projects. If this was the way to go, I'd better buy a commercial text processor I can afford and stick with it.
But I am in the weaker position and already spent lots of time in a LaTeX-based thesis, so please let me know a price, and I have to see...
Thanks and best wishes,
Tobias
________________________________
Von: David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2021 00:58
An: Bruckmann, Tobias
Cc: Ikumi Keita; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
"Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Hi Ikumi, David
>
> this is a bad situation. I am quite surprised I am the first (and only?) one
> to stumble across this:
> - Most scientific works use vector EPS graphics. psfrag is extremely popular
> in this field.
> - Most works are published in PDF
> - You can't get around hyperref
>
> The combination of pstool and pdfLaTeX seems to be the most promising
> approach to me to join these points in one toolchain. Living with an old
> version might work for some months, but this can't be the future.
>
> So there's no pathway and this toolchain is dead forever?
>
> Thanks for your appreciated comment,
So what are you willing to invest to avert the catastrophe? In terms of
procuring code or paying for the time of those who do?
--
David Kastrup
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:11:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #38 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
"Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Dear David,
>
> this is a good question. I didn't want to push
Not?
> but just point out the relevance of the issue, believing that you feel
> a personal appreciation (and/or certain responsibility) for a code you
> officially maintain.
>
> If I had the expertise to fix the code on my own, I would not have
> spent the time to find and bother you, but better invest it to produce
> the solution and propose it to you.
>
> If you ask for money - that could be a problem. I have no idea on the
> time needed to find the problem, to fix and to test it. Hiring a
> professional is probably beyond my budget as I am just an
> academics. As such, I am volunteering as well in multiple matters,
> trying to improve things - so I think when it comes to projects driven
> by enthusiastism, I share your engagement, but I don't think that a
> spirit of needing individual payments will lead to a better future for
> open source projects.
I thought so. I've invested decades of my time in Free Software, living
below minimum wage, with the obvious consequences for my personal
future. All that buys you is people thinking they are entitled to it
and argue you should do more for them.
There are times when this motivational framework does not work all that
well for me.
--
David Kastrup
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Mon, 01 Mar 2021 09:14:06 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #41 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2021 14:10
> An: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>
> Cc: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org;
> 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
>
> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
>
> > Dear David,
> >
> > this is a good question. I didn't want to push
>
> Not?
>
No. I just asked whether there is a chance that this gets a fix. You
mentioned that you are not seeing a chance to fix it due to conflicts
between Hyperref and LaTeX internals, and I wanted to know if this means the
toolchain I described is dead, despite its relevance for scientific authors.
If you confirm this, I will have to change my toolchain. Or look for other
people who stumble across the same issue and who are maybe able to fix it.
> > but just point out the relevance of the issue, believing that you feel
> > a personal appreciation (and/or certain responsibility) for a code you
> > officially maintain.
> >
> > If I had the expertise to fix the code on my own, I would not have
> > spent the time to find and bother you, but better invest it to produce
> > the solution and propose it to you.
> >
> > If you ask for money - that could be a problem. I have no idea on the
> > time needed to find the problem, to fix and to test it. Hiring a
> > professional is probably beyond my budget as I am just an academics.
> > As such, I am volunteering as well in multiple matters, trying to
> > improve things - so I think when it comes to projects driven by
> > enthusiastism, I share your engagement, but I don't think that a
> > spirit of needing individual payments will lead to a better future for
> > open source projects.
>
> I thought so. I've invested decades of my time in Free Software, living
below
> minimum wage, with the obvious consequences for my personal future. All
> that buys you is people thinking they are entitled to it and argue you
should do
> more for them.
>
> There are times when this motivational framework does not work all that
well
> for me.
I understand. But look, Free Software in its core concept was always driven
by enthusiasts who enjoy spending their leisure time in creating software
together. I agree, this implies that no one can push you. Now you join
the project and try to enforce a business model. I know how it feels if a
business plan fails, but you cannot blame the Free Software model, driven by
people doing things for themselves and others because of ... fun.
Note, I did not ask a company to implement an extra software feature for me,
but I asked the voluntary maintainers to give a comment on chances for a bug
fix.
Don't get me wrong, but on my side it feels like you turned the Free
Software maintainer position into a sales platform for your service.
Establishing a functionality in Free Software, letting people rely on it and
then(!) ask for money for bugfixes does not feel fair for me: If you intend
to make money
with software (which is absolutely reasonable), then create a product, put a
price tag on it and advertise. Then customers might buy it for a price they
know in advance, and the sum of their payments will pay your bills. This is
what commercial programmers do.
If you decide to create and advertise commercial LaTeX packages,
I totally might be amongst your customers if they simplify my work.
LaTeX
would probably take advantage from such entrepreneur initiatives, just like
Linux. But - please - dont change the rules during the game...
Tobias
>
> --
> David Kastrup
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Wed, 01 Sep 2021 18:45:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #44 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear Ikumi,
6 months ago we had the conversation below, and as Mr. Kastrup decided not
to care for the issue without getting paid, I wanted to ask whether this bug
is still on the list of the auctex team.
I had some conversation here
https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/587774/proper-toolchain-for-pdflatex
-and-psfrag-including-hyperref where also Ulrike Fischer commented. She also
created a separate burg report here
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=44578
It seems the only proper solution is a fix in the preview package.
Thanks for a short comment,
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Bruckmann, Tobias
Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2021 10:14
An: 'David Kastrup' <dak <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org;
44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: AW: AW: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2021 14:10
> An: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>
> Cc: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>; 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org;
> 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
>
> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
>
> > Dear David,
> >
> > this is a good question. I didn't want to push
>
> Not?
>
No. I just asked whether there is a chance that this gets a fix. You
mentioned that you are not seeing a chance to fix it due to conflicts
between Hyperref and LaTeX internals, and I wanted to know if this means the
toolchain I described is dead, despite its relevance for scientific authors.
If you confirm this, I will have to change my toolchain. Or look for other
people who stumble across the same issue and who are maybe able to fix it.
> > but just point out the relevance of the issue, believing that you feel
> > a personal appreciation (and/or certain responsibility) for a code you
> > officially maintain.
> >
> > If I had the expertise to fix the code on my own, I would not have
> > spent the time to find and bother you, but better invest it to produce
> > the solution and propose it to you.
> >
> > If you ask for money - that could be a problem. I have no idea on the
> > time needed to find the problem, to fix and to test it. Hiring a
> > professional is probably beyond my budget as I am just an academics.
> > As such, I am volunteering as well in multiple matters, trying to
> > improve things - so I think when it comes to projects driven by
> > enthusiastism, I share your engagement, but I don't think that a
> > spirit of needing individual payments will lead to a better future for
> > open source projects.
>
> I thought so. I've invested decades of my time in Free Software, living
below
> minimum wage, with the obvious consequences for my personal future. All
> that buys you is people thinking they are entitled to it and argue you
should do
> more for them.
>
> There are times when this motivational framework does not work all that
well
> for me.
I understand. But look, Free Software in its core concept was always driven
by enthusiasts who enjoy spending their leisure time in creating software
together. I agree, this implies that no one can push you. Now you join
the project and try to enforce a business model. I know how it feels if a
business plan fails, but you cannot blame the Free Software model, driven by
people doing things for themselves and others because of ... fun.
Note, I did not ask a company to implement an extra software feature for me,
but I asked the voluntary maintainers to give a comment on chances for a bug
fix.
Don't get me wrong, but on my side it feels like you turned the Free
Software maintainer position into a sales platform for your service.
Establishing a functionality in Free Software, letting people rely on it and
then(!) ask for money for bugfixes does not feel fair for me: If you intend
to make money
with software (which is absolutely reasonable), then create a product, put a
price tag on it and advertise. Then customers might buy it for a price they
know in advance, and the sum of their payments will pay your bills. This is
what commercial programmers do.
If you decide to create and advertise commercial LaTeX packages,
I totally might be amongst your customers if they simplify my work.
LaTeX
would probably take advantage from such entrepreneur initiatives, just like
Linux. But - please - dont change the rules during the game...
Tobias
>
> --
> David Kastrup
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Wed, 01 Sep 2021 18:55:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #47 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
"Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Dear Ikumi,
>
> 6 months ago we had the conversation below, and as Mr. Kastrup decided not
> to care for the issue without getting paid, I wanted to ask whether this bug
> is still on the list of the auctex team.
Mr Kastrup was not motivated by the entitlement attitude that demanded
he be happy to invest work, time and energy that was more than the
complainant was willing to invest.
And I cannot really say that the continued abuse and entitlement is
doing a particularly swell job of raising motivation.
--
David Kastrup
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 02 Sep 2021 07:01:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #50 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Dear Tobias,
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> 6 months ago we had the conversation below, and as Mr. Kastrup decided
> not to care for the issue without getting paid, I wanted to ask
> whether this bug is still on the list of the auctex team.
This bug is registered in Bug Tracker of AUCTeX:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=auctex
So perhaps someone might pick it up and try to resolve it in future;
However, I think that hope is very weak. In my view, the (La)TeX
ecosystem is moving rapidly towards PDF centric realm with respect to
the graphic format and EPS is already considered (implicitly) as
semi-obsolete. In a decade, EPS would be totally obsolete as (La)TeX
graphic format.
You wrote
> - Most scientific works use vector EPS graphics.
before. If your tool supports only EPS as the format for outputs, my
recommendation is to ask the developer to update it to support other
format. If I remember correctly, many scientific tools which consider
interoperability with LaTeX recently supports TikZ code as export
format. Is it difficult to do so for your tool?
> The combination of pstool and pdfLaTeX seems to be the most promising
> approach to me to join these points in one toolchain.
For the reason described above, I don't think it's promising, at least
for usage with (La)TeX.
> So there's no pathway and this toolchain is dead forever?
The answer depends whether the developer of your tool adheres to EPS or
not, I think.
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 02 Sep 2021 07:46:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #53 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear Ikumi,
first, I would like to thank you for taking the time to reflect the
situation and to give me some insight.
I would be perfectly fine with a purely PDF-based toolchain, and as I use
Inkscape as a graphics editor, that would be no problem. My only requirement
is the ability to replace text in graphics by LaTeX expressions, which is
why I use pstool.
(Well, to be honest, as I am in the middle of preparing a larger document
and as dozens of graphics are already prepared for pstool replacements, I
would be in favor of finalizing this single project using the pstool
approach...)
Are you aware of any approach to do these LaTeX text replacements in PDF
graphics already today?
I will try the TikZ format in between.
Thanks,
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. September 2021 09:01
An: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>
Cc: 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: Future of EPS (was Re: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex)
Dear Tobias,
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> 6 months ago we had the conversation below, and as Mr. Kastrup decided
> not to care for the issue without getting paid, I wanted to ask
> whether this bug is still on the list of the auctex team.
This bug is registered in Bug Tracker of AUCTeX:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=auctex
So perhaps someone might pick it up and try to resolve it in future;
However, I think that hope is very weak. In my view, the (La)TeX ecosystem
is moving rapidly towards PDF centric realm with respect to the graphic
format and EPS is already considered (implicitly) as semi-obsolete. In a
decade, EPS would be totally obsolete as (La)TeX graphic format.
You wrote
> - Most scientific works use vector EPS graphics.
before. If your tool supports only EPS as the format for outputs, my
recommendation is to ask the developer to update it to support other format.
If I remember correctly, many scientific tools which consider
interoperability with LaTeX recently supports TikZ code as export format. Is
it difficult to do so for your tool?
> The combination of pstool and pdfLaTeX seems to be the most promising
> approach to me to join these points in one toolchain.
For the reason described above, I don't think it's promising, at least for
usage with (La)TeX.
> So there's no pathway and this toolchain is dead forever?
The answer depends whether the developer of your tool adheres to EPS or not,
I think.
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 02 Sep 2021 11:28:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #56 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> (Well, to be honest, as I am in the middle of preparing a larger document
> and as dozens of graphics are already prepared for pstool replacements, I
> would be in favor of finalizing this single project using the pstool
> approach...)
Old TeX distribution taken from https://www.tug.org/historic/ would
serve for such one-shot purpose, wouldn't it?
Or perhaps eps2pgf[1] might be of help for you. It says:
,----
| The most interesting part of eps2pgf is that it allows you to replace
| text in the EPS figure with arbitrary LaTeX markup. It is in fact an
| alternative to using tools like PSfrag, and it is even compatible with
| PSfrag. See the documentation for more details.
`----
It seems that eps2pgf is a rather old Java application and its
development was abondoned long before. A Japanese user made a Docker
container[2] for easy use of it, but I'm not sure it's really usable.
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
[1]https://texample.net/tikz/examples/eps2pgf/
[2]https://qiita.com/doraTeX/items/7705a6823d165d48979e
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:20:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #59 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Are you aware of any approach to do these LaTeX text replacements in PDF
> graphics already today?
How about exporting figures _without_ texts and _adding_ annotation with
TikZ, as done in the attached example? In this way, no "text
replacements" are necessary.
Or is it too painful to adjust the position of the texts at LaTeX level,
not at the time of creation of figure?
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
[graphic-annot.tex (text/x-tex, inline)]
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tikz}
\begin{document}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (figure) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=10cm]{tiger.pdf}};
\node at (figure.east) {foo};
\node at (figure.north west) {\(x^{2}+y^{2}=z^{2}\)};
\path (figure) ++(-2,-1) node[fill=white] {\Large\(E=mc^{2}\)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{document}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End:
[graphic-annot.pdf (application/pdf, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:51:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #62 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> wrote:
> How about exporting figures _without_ texts and _adding_ annotation with
> TikZ, as done in the attached example? In this way, no "text
> replacements" are necessary.
The following answers could help with this approach:
https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/9562/73317
https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/610027/73317
Regards
--
Florent
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 03 Sep 2021 14:12:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #65 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear Ikumi,
thanks a lot, especially for the detailed description of possible
approaches.
As many figures are scientific plots, e.g. generated in MATLAB, containing
axes definitions and multiple textual informations, that would be hard to
realize...
Thanks anyways! I will try to test TikZ export functions available in MATLAB
and Inkscape.
Best wishes,
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Gesendet: Freitag, 3. September 2021 10:20
An: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>
Cc: 45894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Betreff: Re: Future of EPS (was Re: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex)
>>>>> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
> Are you aware of any approach to do these LaTeX text replacements in
> PDF graphics already today?
How about exporting figures _without_ texts and _adding_ annotation with
TikZ, as done in the attached example? In this way, no "text replacements"
are necessary.
Or is it too painful to adjust the position of the texts at LaTeX level, not
at the time of creation of figure?
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Tue, 05 Oct 2021 13:32:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #68 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Dear David Kastrup
I have encountered a problem involving the latex package preview. If I understand well it is due to "a change in the latex shipout routine" in the last versions. I read the threads on the GNU bug reports 44578 and 45894 about the problem. It appears you are the current maintainer of preview, but unfortunately do not currently have the ressources to take care this problem.
I am unable to do it myself, but there were some mention of maybe paying for your expertise. Would you be willing to estimate a cost at which you could take proper care of the problem, or maybe point me to other people with enough knowledge to do it?
Regards
Hugo Raguet
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Wed, 06 Oct 2021 11:04:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #71 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
> Dear David Kastrup
>
> I have encountered a problem involving the latex package preview. If I
> understand well it is due to "a change in the latex shipout routine"
> in the last versions. I read the threads on the GNU bug reports 44578
> and 45894 about the problem. It appears you are the current maintainer
> of preview, but unfortunately do not currently have the ressources to
> take care this problem.
>
> I am unable to do it myself, but there were some mention of maybe
> paying for your expertise. Would you be willing to estimate a cost at
> which you could take proper care of the problem, or maybe point me to
> other people with enough knowledge to do it?
Reading reports, analysing and understanding problem: €50
Reading up on the tools LaTeX now wants instead: €30
Devising and implementing a fix €30
Backward compatibility €10
Cleaning up and shepherding through AUCTeX repository €25
Submitting and shepherding through CTAN €25
Dealing with problem reports and feedback €25
Total: €195
Everybody will tell you that this is a total ripoff (the actual code
will likely not be more than a dozen lines) and nobody will volunteer to
do it for that price, judging from experience. I spent years on
creating preview-latex and got probably about double that amount in
return.
You'll find people with the necessary skills easily on TeX/LaTeX forums
and mailing lists, and maybe the outrage at my insolent demands will
help motivate someone to earn a few Karma points. Just don't expect too
much regarding the followup work.
Good luck!
--
David Kastrup
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:01:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #74 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
Hi all,
>> I have encountered a problem involving the latex package preview. If
>> I understand well it is due to "a change in the latex shipout
>> routine" in the last versions. I read the threads on the GNU bug
>> reports 44578 and 45894 about the problem. It appears you are the
>> current maintainer of preview, but unfortunately do not currently
>> have the ressources to take care this problem.
>>
>> I am unable to do it myself, but there were some mention of maybe
>> paying for your expertise. Would you be willing to estimate a cost at
>> which you could take proper care of the problem, or maybe point me to
>> other people with enough knowledge to do it?
>
> Reading reports, analysing and understanding problem: €50
> Reading up on the tools LaTeX now wants instead: €30
> Devising and implementing a fix €30
> Backward compatibility €10
> Cleaning up and shepherding through AUCTeX repository €25
> Submitting and shepherding through CTAN €25
> Dealing with problem reports and feedback €25
>
> Total: €195
>
> Everybody will tell you that this is a total ripoff (the actual code
> will likely not be more than a dozen lines) and nobody will volunteer
> to do it for that price, judging from experience.
To me the price seems absolutely reasonable (I had expected much more),
so I'd very much suggest Hugo & Tobias simply accept the offer and share
the price. Feel free to discuss that off-list and contact David when
you came to a conclusion.
Bye,
Tassilo
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:02:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:21:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #80 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Hugo,
>> To me the price seems absolutely reasonable (I had expected much
>> more), so I'd very much suggest Hugo & Tobias simply accept the offer
>> and share the price. Feel free to discuss that off-list and contact
>> David when you came to a conclusion.
>
> That is what we are doing.
Alright, very good.
> Currently just held back by administrative issues, because my employer
> is supposed to pay the bill, but I am not sure under which tax regime
> this will be acceptable for its accounting.
Oh, I can't help with that. Maybe "writing utensils". :-)
Bye,
Tassilo
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 08 Oct 2021 15:01:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #83 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hello
On 08/10/2021 14:52, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> Hi all,
>
>>> I have encountered a problem involving the latex package preview....
>>
>> Reading reports, analysing and understanding problem: €50
>> Reading up on the tools LaTeX now wants instead: €30
>> Devising and implementing a fix €30
>> Backward compatibility €10
>> Cleaning up and shepherding through AUCTeX repository €25
>> Submitting and shepherding through CTAN €25
>> Dealing with problem reports and feedback €25
>>
>> Total: €195
>>
>
> To me the price seems absolutely reasonable (I had expected much more),
> so I'd very much suggest Hugo & Tobias simply accept the offer and share
> the price. Feel free to discuss that off-list and contact David when
> you came to a conclusion.
>
That is what we are doing. Currently just held back by administrative issues, because my employer is supposed to pay the bill, but I am not sure under which tax regime this will be acceptable for its accounting.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 11:17:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #86 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi everyone,
On 08/10/2021 15:16, Hugo Raguet wrote:
> Hello
>
> On 08/10/2021 14:52, Tassilo Horn wrote:
>> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>>> I have encountered a problem involving the latex package preview....
>>>
>>> Reading reports, analysing and understanding problem: €50
>>> Reading up on the tools LaTeX now wants instead: €30
>>> Devising and implementing a fix €30
>>> Backward compatibility €10
>>> Cleaning up and shepherding through AUCTeX repository €25
>>> Submitting and shepherding through CTAN €25
>>> Dealing with problem reports and feedback €25
>>>
>>> Total: €195
>>>
>>
>> To me the price seems absolutely reasonable (I had expected much more),
>> so I'd very much suggest Hugo & Tobias simply accept the offer and share
>> the price. Feel free to discuss that off-list and contact David when
>> you came to a conclusion.
>>
>
> That is what we are doing. Currently just held back by administrative issues, because my employer is supposed to pay the bill, but I am not sure under which tax regime this will be acceptable for its accounting.
Unfortunately, we could not find an agreement. If I understand well, David Kastrup you are willing to do the job if paid by individuals, but you refuse to edit a proper bill to be paid by organizations.
Bug still pending...
Regards
HR
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 11:57:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #89 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
>> That is what we are doing. Currently just held back by administrative
>> issues, because my employer is supposed to pay the bill, but I am not
>> sure under which tax regime this will be acceptable for its
>> accounting.
>
> Unfortunately, we could not find an agreement. If I understand well,
> David Kastrup you are willing to do the job if paid by individuals,
> but you refuse to edit a proper bill to be paid by organizations.
AFAIK, editing a proper bill addressing all tax related things that your
organization needs is a non-trivial task and possibly more
time-consuming than the fix itself. So it's certainly not individuals
vs. organization.
Fortunately for you guys, a small group of individuals has been found
who will pay to get your bug fixed.
> Bug still pending...
Have you tried GNU AUCTeX 13.0.15 from
https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/auctex.html
with the preview.sty version shipping with that, yet?
Bye,
Tassilo
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 11:57:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 14:06:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #95 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org> writes:
> Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
>
>>> That is what we are doing. Currently just held back by administrative
>>> issues, because my employer is supposed to pay the bill, but I am not
>>> sure under which tax regime this will be acceptable for its
>>> accounting.
>>
>> Unfortunately, we could not find an agreement. If I understand well,
>> David Kastrup you are willing to do the job if paid by individuals,
>> but you refuse to edit a proper bill to be paid by organizations.
>
> AFAIK, editing a proper bill addressing all tax related things that your
> organization needs is a non-trivial task and possibly more
> time-consuming than the fix itself.
It's more like the possible followup may become a mess if the tax
related things are not done properly, and there are different tax
regimes involved.
Given that the original motivation to do something here was really
lacking, this just did not fit a "recompense for actual effort"
calculation any more and it didn't help that this was intended to become
a posterchild of the "work on free software can be paid work" kind in
light of what I previously invested in the project.
It was a well-meant pitch but in the end did not manage to make it to my
home plate.
Additionally it would appear that the LaTeX team made this a really
muddy and unreliable feat by trying to introduce new hooks and hide
functionality (in more than one iteration) that just don't match the use
case of preview.sty, and that I fail to reproduce the problem on my own
computer in the first place. So there really is no clear finishing line
to when this can be considered fixed in good conscience.
> So it's certainly not individuals vs. organization.
>
> Fortunately for you guys, a small group of individuals has been found
> who will pay to get your bug fixed.
>
>> Bug still pending...
He did say that the main thing I had to fear was getting blamed on the
mailing list for not doing what I had been paid for. It would appear
that this does not really depend all that much on payment.
> Have you tried GNU AUCTeX 13.0.15 from
>
> https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/auctex.html
>
> with the preview.sty version shipping with that, yet?
Given that I am unable to reproduce the problem on my system (I have no
proper idea why), that would be a welcome data point.
--
David Kastrup
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 14:07:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 16:05:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #101 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 06/01/2022 15:05, David Kastrup wrote:
> Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org> writes
>>
>> ...
>>
> ...
> It was a well-meant pitch but in the end did not manage to make it to my
> home plate.
It is a pity from my point of view because I know there simply is no legal or financial risk (my organization would just have paid for a service I need for my work, without knowing further about it). But I also understand that David Kastrup you do not want to take any risk, especially in view of the lack of motivation.
>> So it's certainly not individuals vs. organization.
>>
>> Fortunately for you guys, a small group of individuals has been found
>> who will pay to get your bug fixed.
>>
>>> Bug still pending...
>
> He did say that the main thing I had to fear was getting blamed on the
> mailing list for not doing what I had been paid for. It would appear
> that this does not really depend all that much on payment.
Again, I hope you are not taking my previous message for a blame. There was no agreement, so you have no obligation, so it is not your fault if the bug is still pending.
I still think that it is good practice to update the status of the bug report ; the last message was implying that we were on the verge of solving the problem. Now if the bug is actually fixed by this “small group of individuals”, here seems also a good place to report it!
>> Have you tried GNU AUCTeX 13.0.15 from
>>
>> https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/auctex.html
>>
>> with the preview.sty version shipping with that, yet?
>
> Given that I am unable to reproduce the problem on my system (I have no
> proper idea why), that would be a welcome data point.
I am not in good position to report if this version of AUCTeX is working, because I actually never used AUCTeX. My attention came to this problem because preview is actually used in packages such as pst-pdf (see for instance https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/617229). If the fixed preview package make it to texlive, I might be able to test it in the near future.
Regards, HR
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 16:05:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:00:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #107 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
Hi Hugo,
> I am not in good position to report if this version of AUCTeX is
> working, because I actually never used AUCTeX. My attention came to
> this problem because preview is actually used in packages such as
> pst-pdf (see for instance https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/617229).
I've attached it; could you and Tobias please give it a try.
> If the fixed preview package make it to texlive, I might be able to
> test it in the near future.
Unless someone having that problem can tell us that the new version
fixes the issue, we won't publish it on CTAN from where TeX distros pick
it up.
Bye,
Tassilo
[preview.sty (text/plain, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 20:00:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 22:29:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #113 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 06/01/2022 20:53, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
>
> Hi Hugo,
>
>> I am not in good position to report if this version of AUCTeX is
>> working, because I actually never used AUCTeX. My attention came to
>> this problem because preview is actually used in packages such as
>> pst-pdf (see for instance https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/617229).
>
> I've attached it; could you and Tobias please give it a try.
Unfortunately, it does not fix my problem ; for instance, the minimum example on the above referenced thread fails with the exact same problem as before if I do not apply Ulrike Fisher's workaround.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 22:29:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 23:22:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #119 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
> On 06/01/2022 20:53, Tassilo Horn wrote:
>> Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
>> Hi Hugo,
>>
>>> I am not in good position to report if this version of AUCTeX is
>>> working, because I actually never used AUCTeX. My attention came to
>>> this problem because preview is actually used in packages such as
>>> pst-pdf (see for instance https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/617229).
>> I've attached it; could you and Tobias please give it a try.
>
> Unfortunately, it does not fix my problem ; for instance, the minimum
> example on the above referenced thread fails with the exact same
> problem as before if I do not apply Ulrike Fisher's workaround.
Ugh. That is a really ugly workaround that looks like a whack-a-mole
game. Also the shipout hooks were not introduced at the same time as
output routine hooks, so one needs to hone in on some particular LaTeX
version for getting this under control.
Thanks for testing.
--
David Kastrup
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Thu, 06 Jan 2022 23:22:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 06:08:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #125 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
>> I've attached it; could you and Tobias please give it a try.
>
> Unfortunately, it does not fix my problem ; for instance, the minimum
> example on the above referenced thread fails with the exact same
> problem as before if I do not apply Ulrike Fisher's workaround.
FWIW, I have the same "problem" as David. The example document from TeX
StackExchange compiles just fine for me (after adding %%%
TeX-command-extra-options: "--shell-escape" to the local variables)
using TeXLive 2021. The compile log suggests that the preview style is
not loaded.
So then I've put a \usepackage{preview} before loading pstricks and
tried both with the TeXLive preview version and the current AUCTeX
version and still both compiled fine and gave the same output.
Maybe you could give the exact latex command that fails for you on this
document?
Bye,
Tassilo
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 06:08:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 08:47:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #131 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
I can confirm that I observe the same behavior as Hugo and that the error is
still appearing with the newest version of preview.sty (as downloaded from
AUCTeX yesterday).
The minimum example I use is
\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[margin=2cm,a4paper]{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\title{psfrag in pdflatex }
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{pstool}
\usepackage{bookmark}
\begin{document}
Test
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\psfragfig[mode=errorstop,width=0.9\textwidth]{use_any_eps_file_here}
\caption{The EPS image with psfragfig}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
Note, I read frequently that TeXLive compiles very well. I use MikTex,
latest updates applied. Maybe Hugo also uses MikTex?
Is it possible that one of those distributions uses legacy packages?
Thanks a lot for your support!
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org>
Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Januar 2022 06:54
An: Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr>
Cc: 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; dak <at> gnu.org; Bruckmann, Tobias
<tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>; bug-auctex <at> gnu.org
Betreff: Re: bug#44578: Investigating current preview problem
Hugo Raguet <hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr> writes:
>> I've attached it; could you and Tobias please give it a try.
>
> Unfortunately, it does not fix my problem ; for instance, the minimum
> example on the above referenced thread fails with the exact same
> problem as before if I do not apply Ulrike Fisher's workaround.
FWIW, I have the same "problem" as David. The example document from TeX
StackExchange compiles just fine for me (after adding %%%
TeX-command-extra-options: "--shell-escape" to the local variables) using
TeXLive 2021. The compile log suggests that the preview style is not
loaded.
So then I've put a \usepackage{preview} before loading pstricks and tried
both with the TeXLive preview version and the current AUCTeX version and
still both compiled fine and gave the same output.
Maybe you could give the exact latex command that fails for you on this
document?
Bye,
Tassilo
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 08:47:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 09:48:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #137 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
"Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de> writes:
Hi Tobias,
> The minimum example I use is
>
> \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
> \usepackage[margin=2cm,a4paper]{geometry}
> \usepackage{hyperref}
> \title{psfrag in pdflatex }
> \usepackage{graphicx}
> \usepackage{pstool}
> \usepackage{bookmark}
> \begin{document}
> Test
> \begin{figure}[h!]
> \centering
> \psfragfig[mode=errorstop,width=0.9\textwidth]{use_any_eps_file_here}
> \caption{The EPS image with psfragfig}
> \end{figure}
> \end{document}
>
> Note, I read frequently that TeXLive compiles very well.
You are right. With a test-example EPS which comes with TeXLive, it
again compiles well for me:
\psfragfig[mode=errorstop,width=0.9\textwidth]{/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/mwe/example-image}
Again, in the log output I don't see preview being loaded, so I added a
\usepackage{preview} again. With that, it still compiles well, both
with the TeXLive version of preview.sty and with the current AUCTeX
version.
However, in the log I also see these warnings:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Package ifplatform Warning:
shell escape is disabled, so I can only detect \ifwindows.
...
Package pstool Warning:
Package option [process=none] activated
because -shell-escape is not enabled.
This warning occurred on input line 163.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
But when I add
%%% TeX-command-extra-options: "--shell-escape"
I get this error:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
=== pstool: begin processing ===
pdflatex: Not writing to /usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/mwe/example-image-pstool.tex (openout_any = p).
./minprevbug2.tex:14: I can't write on file `/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/mwe/example-image-pstool.tex'.
<to be read again>
\relax
l.14 \caption
{The EPS image with psfragfig}
(Press Enter to retry, or Control-D to exit; default file extension is `.tex')
Please type another output file name
./minprevbug2.tex:14: Emergency stop.
<to be read again>
\relax
l.14 \caption
{The EPS image with psfragfig}
./minprevbug2.tex:14: ==> Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file produced!
Transcript written on minprevbug2.log.
TeX Output exited abnormally with code 1 at Fri Jan 7 10:36:01
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I have no clue about pstools, so I copied the image next to the tex file
so that it can write the eps-image-name.tex file. Then it complained
about missing tikzpicture, so I eventually added
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{calc}
and the compile worked again. Again, the log suggestes that preview.sty
is not loaded, so again I added \usepackage{preview} and tried with both
the TeXLive and AUCTeX versions. As you can guess, both worked just
fine.
> I use MikTex, latest updates applied. Maybe Hugo also uses MikTex? Is
> it possible that one of those distributions uses legacy packages?
I have no clue and no possibility to try MikTex but it seems to be
depending on distro.
Bye,
Tassilo
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 09:48:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:34:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #143 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Tassilo and all,
I can reproduce on TeX Live what Hugo and Tobias say.
>>>>> Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> The minimum example I use is
>>
>> \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
>> \usepackage[margin=2cm,a4paper]{geometry}
>> \usepackage{hyperref}
>> \title{psfrag in pdflatex }
>> \usepackage{graphicx}
>> \usepackage{pstool}
>> \usepackage{bookmark}
>> \begin{document}
>> Test
>> \begin{figure}[h!]
>> \centering
>> \psfragfig[mode=errorstop,width=0.9\textwidth]{use_any_eps_file_here}
>> \caption{The EPS image with psfragfig}
>> \end{figure}
>> \end{document}
I replaced "use_any_eps_file_here" with "tiger" and saved the file under
the name "xyz.tex". And I created symbolic link of tiger.eps in the
current directory (in my case, /tmp/):
ln -s /usr/local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pstricks/images/tiger.eps .
And I issued pdflatex in my shell (not using AUCTeX):
pdflatex -shell-escape xyz.tex
Then I got ghostscript error during the automatic invocation of ps2pdf:
=== pstool: ps2pdf ===
Error: /typecheck in --div--
Operand stack:
1 0 0.0 -0.770989 a 65781.8
Execution stack:
%interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1974 1 3 %oparray_pop 1973 1 3 %oparray_pop 1961 1 3 %oparray_pop 1817 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 4 --nostringval-- %repeat_continue --nostringval--
...
See the attached test kit (not including the symlink of eps file).
> You are right. With a test-example EPS which comes with TeXLive, it
> again compiles well for me:
> \psfragfig[mode=errorstop,width=0.9\textwidth]{/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/mwe/example-image}
It seems that the usage of "example-image" is the source of trouble. In
that case, I find in the log that "example-image.tex" is read in, not
"example-image.eps".
> I have no clue about pstools, so I copied the image next to the tex file
> so that it can write the eps-image-name.tex file. Then it complained
> about missing tikzpicture,
That's because "example-image.tex" contains tikzpicture environment. So
I infer that "example-image" isn't suitable to specify as an argument to
\psfragfig.
I experienced similar error with Hugo's example as well if I used the
command pdflatex, not latex when typesetting.
Regards,
Ikumi Keita
[kit.tar.gz (application/gzip, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:49:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #146 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi all,
Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:
> I can reproduce on TeX Live what Hugo and Tobias say.
>
> It seems that the usage of "example-image" is the source of trouble. In
> that case, I find in the log that "example-image.tex" is read in, not
> "example-image.eps".
>
>> I have no clue about pstools, so I copied the image next to the tex file
>> so that it can write the eps-image-name.tex file. Then it complained
>> about missing tikzpicture,
>
> That's because "example-image.tex" contains tikzpicture environment. So
> I infer that "example-image" isn't suitable to specify as an argument to
> \psfragfig.
I think this is a documented feature of pstool:
\psfragfig <suffix> [<opts>] {<filename>}
This catch-all macro is designed to support a wide range of graphics
naming schemes. It inserts an eps file named either
<filename>-psfrag.eps or <filename>.eps (in that order of preference),
and uses psfrag definitions contained within either
<filename>-psfrag.tex or <filename>.tex.
IIUC, the problem is that the MWE provided is off. This all needs a
file which provides psfrag macros which will be replaced in the .eps.
This is at least my understanding (and my apologies in advance if I'm
totally wrong here).
Best, Arash
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 11:59:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #149 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:
>> You are right. With a test-example EPS which comes with TeXLive, it
>> again compiles well for me:
>
>> \psfragfig[mode=errorstop,width=0.9\textwidth]{/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/mwe/example-image}
>
> It seems that the usage of "example-image" is the source of
> trouble. In that case, I find in the log that "example-image.tex" is
> read in, not "example-image.eps".
Ah, indeed, both exist. But I specified example-image.eps at the first
try and then it complained that example-image.eps.eps did not exist.
So it seems that depending on if -shell-escape is used, \psfragfig
either expects/prefers an eps or a tex file?
Bye,
Tassilo
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 12:13:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #152 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear Tassilo,
as far as I understood, the principle is that \psfragfig calls an external
process to perform an "encapsulated" LaTeX->PS->PDF run, applied on a
synthetical LaTeX document that contains the *.eps file. It replaces all
expressions found in the *.eps file (say, a letter "a"), by the
corresponding expression given by psfrag (say, a proper math symbol a):
\psfrag{a}[cc][cc][1.3]{$a$}
Now whether the figure environment contains this line, or the user provides
a separate file, exactly named as the corresponding *.eps file, that
contains all replacements for that *.eps figure.
So, to make psfragfig working, I always thought that -shell-escape is
absolutely needed!
I am not sure whether this was your question, but if I can help, please let
me know.
Best wishes,
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org>
Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Januar 2022 12:52
An: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Cc: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>; 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org;
dak <at> gnu.org; hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr
Betreff: Re: bug#44578: AW: bug#44578: Investigating current preview problem
Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:
>> You are right. With a test-example EPS which comes with TeXLive, it
>> again compiles well for me:
>
>>
>> \psfragfig[mode=errorstop,width=0.9\textwidth]{/usr/share/texmf-dist/
>> tex/latex/mwe/example-image}
>
> It seems that the usage of "example-image" is the source of trouble.
> In that case, I find in the log that "example-image.tex" is read in,
> not "example-image.eps".
Ah, indeed, both exist. But I specified example-image.eps at the first try
and then it complained that example-image.eps.eps did not exist.
So it seems that depending on if -shell-escape is used, \psfragfig either
expects/prefers an eps or a tex file?
Bye,
Tassilo
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 13:25:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #155 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:
> I replaced "use_any_eps_file_here" with "tiger" and saved the file
> under the name "xyz.tex". And I created symbolic link of tiger.eps in
> the current directory (in my case, /tmp/): ln -s
> /usr/local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pstricks/images/tiger.eps
> .
Unfortunately, my TeXLive doesn't have a tiger. ;-)
> And I issued pdflatex in my shell (not using AUCTeX):
> pdflatex -shell-escape xyz.tex
Ah, there you go! AUCTeX called latex.
> Then I got ghostscript error during the automatic invocation of ps2pdf:
> === pstool: ps2pdf ===
> Error: /typecheck in --div--
> Operand stack:
> 1 0 0.0 -0.770989 a 65781.8
> Execution stack:
> %interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2
> %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1
> %stopped_push 1974 1 3 %oparray_pop 1973 1 3 %oparray_pop 1961 1 3 %oparray_pop
> 1817 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2 --nostringval--
> --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval--
> --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 4 --nostringval-- %repeat_continue
> --nostringval--
> ...
So now I can get a similar error also with Hugo's example:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
-------------------------------------------------
auto-pst-pdf: Auxiliary LaTeX compilation
-------------------------------------------------
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.23 (TeX Live 2021/Arch Linux) (preloaded format=latex)
entering extended mode
This is dvips(k) 2021.1 Copyright 2021 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com)
' TeX output 2022.01.07:1413' -> minprevbug-autopp.ps
</usr/share/texmf-dist/dvips/base/tex.pro>
</usr/share/texmf-dist/dvips/config/alt-rule.pro>
</usr/share/texmf-dist/dvips/pstricks/pstricks.pro>
</usr/share/texmf-dist/dvips/pstricks/pst-algparser.pro>
</usr/share/texmf-dist/dvips/pst-tools/pst-tools.pro>
</usr/share/texmf-dist/dvips/pstricks/pst-dots.pro>
</usr/share/texmf-dist/dvips/l3backend/l3backend-dvips.pro>
</usr/share/texmf-dist/dvips/base/special.pro>. [1]
Error: /typecheck in --div--
Operand stack:
1 0 0.0 -0.239398 a 65781.8
Execution stack:
%interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1990 1 3 %oparray_pop 1989 1 3 %oparray_pop 1977 1 3 %oparray_pop 1833 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 4 --nostringval-- %repeat_continue --nostringval--
Dictionary stack:
--dict:784/1123(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:156/200(L)-- --dict:96/300(L)--
Current allocation mode is local
Current file position is 121439
GPL Ghostscript 9.55.0: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
system returned with code 256
PDFCROP 1.40, 2020/06/06 - Copyright (c) 2002-2020 by Heiko Oberdiek, Oberdiek Package Support Group.
!!! Warning: Empty Bounding Box is returned by Ghostscript!
!!! Page 1: 0 0 0 0
!!! Either there is a problem with the page or with Ghostscript.
!!! Recovery is tried by embedding the page in its original size.
==> 1 page written on `minprevbug-pics.pdf'.
-------------------------------------------------
auto-pst-pdf: End auxiliary LaTeX compilation
-------------------------------------------------
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
And indeed, when using pdflatex I can see that preview is loaded
(without having to usepackage it):
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(/home/horn/.TeX/preview.sty
Package: preview 2017/04/24 13.1 (AUCTeX/preview-latex)
\pr <at> snippet=\count352
\pr <at> box=\box78
\pr <at> output=\toks51
)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
The error stays the same no matter if the TeXLive or AUCTeX preview.sty
version is used.
Ok, so at least we have an example now which seems to fail successfully
for most of us. ;-) David, does that fail on your machine, too?
Bye,
Tassilo
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 13:25:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Fri, 07 Jan 2022 21:45:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #161 received at 44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 2022-01-07 at 14:14:48 +0100, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:
>
> > I replaced "use_any_eps_file_here" with "tiger" and saved the file
> > under the name "xyz.tex". And I created symbolic link of tiger.eps in
> > the current directory (in my case, /tmp/): ln -s
> > /usr/local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pstricks/images/tiger.eps
> > .
>
> Unfortunately, my TeXLive doesn't have a tiger. ;-)
It has. But the doc tree isn't searched by kpathsea.
Hence the "ln -s /usr/..../tiger.eps ." above.
Regards,
Reinhard
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-3373112
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover mailto:reinhard.kotucha <at> web.de
------------------------------------------------------------------
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:52:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #164 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Reinhard Kotucha <reinhard.kotucha <at> web.de> writes:
Hi Reinhard,
> > > I replaced "use_any_eps_file_here" with "tiger" and saved the file
> > > under the name "xyz.tex". And I created symbolic link of tiger.eps in
> > > the current directory (in my case, /tmp/): ln -s
> > > /usr/local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pstricks/images/tiger.eps
> > > .
> >
> > Unfortunately, my TeXLive doesn't have a tiger. ;-)
>
> It has. But the doc tree isn't searched by kpathsea.
> Hence the "ln -s /usr/..../tiger.eps ." above.
Ok, let me state it this way: my distro's texlive packages don't seem to
install the doc tree.
Bye,
Tassilo
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:53:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:14:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #170 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Dear all,
is there still something that Hugo or me could provide? I am not sure
whether there are open points that we could support. In that case, please
let us know.
Thanks and best wishes,
Tobias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org>
Gesendet: Samstag, 8. Januar 2022 11:47
An: reinhard.kotucha <at> web.de
Cc: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>; dak <at> gnu.org; Bruckmann, Tobias
<tobias.bruckmann <at> uni-due.de>; hugo.raguet <at> insa-cvl.fr;
44578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; bug-auctex <at> gnu.org
Betreff: Re: bug#44578: AW: bug#44578: Investigating current preview problem
Reinhard Kotucha <reinhard.kotucha <at> web.de> writes:
Hi Reinhard,
> > > I replaced "use_any_eps_file_here" with "tiger" and saved the
> file > > under the name "xyz.tex". And I created symbolic link of
> tiger.eps in > > the current directory (in my case, /tmp/): ln -s >
> >
> /usr/local/texlive/2021/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pstricks/images/tiger.e
> ps
> > > .
> >
> > Unfortunately, my TeXLive doesn't have a tiger. ;-)
>
> It has. But the doc tree isn't searched by kpathsea.
> Hence the "ln -s /usr/..../tiger.eps ." above.
Ok, let me state it this way: my distro's texlive packages don't seem to
install the doc tree.
Bye,
Tassilo
[smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-auctex <at> gnu.org:
bug#44578; Package
auctex.
(Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:14:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 103 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.