Timeline for Why does the arXiv produce a messed-up DVI when the PDF is fine?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2011 at 17:28 | vote | accept | Ben Webster♦ | ||
| May 3, 2010 at 2:45 | answer | added | Thorsten | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 30, 2010 at 15:57 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 228 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2010 at 6:34 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | Best to convert your figure to PDF first and then include them in a format-neutral manner. If, for example, you are using the graphicx package then if you leave off the extension it tries to find the right format. So \includegraphics{hello} will look for hello.eps when doing DVI and hello.pdf when doing PDF. | |
| Apr 30, 2010 at 1:38 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | @Andrea: There is an analog of dvips for PDF. It's called dvipdfm. It supports EPS figures, colors etc. I do not see any reason not to use it. | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 23:09 | comment | added | Andrea Ferretti | There are various reasons why one would want to do compilation in that order. Maybe one wants to include eps figures, or use a package which is not compatible with PDF output, like kuvio. Indeed I still do this route more often than not. Of course it is also true that sometimes one needs to compile directly with pdflatex, for instance in order to use microtype. | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 22:56 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | A few years ago the arXiv was still producing PDF by a rather circuitous route: DVI->PS->PDF. (I contacted them and they explained why, but I seem to have misplaced their explanatory email.) | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 22:08 | answer | added | Dmitri Pavlov | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 19:49 | answer | added | Andrew Stacey | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 19:26 | comment | added | Matthew Daws | Erm... Checking this, the DVI file displays fine on my computer (Windows Vista, MikTeX). But: YAP did have to download and install a font package. This works flawlessly on my computer, but I imagine if I tried to view the file on my aging Linux machine at work, then it wouldn't display. So... it is just the case that you're using an old DVI viewer?? | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 19:25 | comment | added | Sergei Ivanov | On my system, the pictures are fine, but the DVI viewer complains about fonts that it cannot find. In general, it is not surprising to me that DVI produced on one machine is not readable on another one. The DVIs are not portable (as well as many other types of files). | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 19:22 | answer | added | Kim Morrison | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 18:56 | answer | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 29, 2010 at 18:45 | history | asked | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |