RE: PostScript docs from DVI or PDF?

[Atwood, Robert C]

I've noticed that some TeX distributions "helpfully" replace some
standard LaTeX or TeX with pdfTeX versions of the same command, which is
not so good if you actually want the dvi. Eg, the output below from my
cygwin default installation of TeTex. I only just notice this the other
day, I am not a huge TeX user (yet) but I like to get what I ask for so
I noticed this odd behaviour when trying to create some cross-platform
documentation (did't use texinfo but maybe I should?  ) I don't know if
this is causing your problem but it's a possibility. 



address@hidden ~
$ latex
This is pdfeTeXk, Version 3.141592-1.21a-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.4)
 file:line:error style messages enabled.
 %&-line parsing enabled.
**

By the way, I really like the debuggable make, whatever you wind up
calling it. I have not actually tried it linked into ddd so far, though
I found out about it from this list ...  just the command line use has
provided me with the tools I was needing. Thanks for developing this. 
Robert
 







-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of R.
Bernstein
Sent: 05 January 2006 12:29
To: address@hidden
Subject: PostScript docs from DVI or PDF?

A while back I mentioned that my texi2dvi seemed to produce a pdf
rather than dvi for reasons I don't understand. 

In the test releases (under the bashdb project), I had just hacked the
ddd/Makefile to use pdf2ps rather than dvips. But do others have this
problem? Any comments on using pdf2ps rather than the route via DVI?


_______________________________________________
Ddd mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ddd