Re: [tex-live] Embedding TrueType fonts in manuals
2007/7/24, Frank Küster <email@example.com>:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:39:27AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> The workflow for producing the Debian installation instructions uses
>> *dvipdf*, not dvipdf*m* or dvipdf*mx*. That's a wrapper which envokes
>> dvips and gs. I have no idea why that was chosen - perhaps just
>> "historical reasons".
> Actually, the d-i manual uses dvipdf, but many other documents in the Debian
> Documentation Project use debiandoc2latexpdf which uses 'pdflatex' as a
> backend. The reason for this is that the d-i manul is written in Docbook-XML
> but most other documentation is (still) written using DebiandocSGML.
> Are there any known issues/recommendations with pdflatex we should take into
> account in the build process?
I've never seen dvipdf (the dvips/gs wrapper) being used other than in
automated package building, whereas loads of people use pdflatex for
daily work, with complicated documents and/or workflow, and still quite
a lot (in particular in non-western countries) use latex and dvipdfm(x).
Therefore it's likely that there are actually less issues with both of
these ways than with dvips/gs.
The only drawback is that, as bugs are being fixed, some workarounds
might stop producing the desired results. Bitrot therefore will likely
have worse effects than with dvips/gs.
I don't think so. there was a bug in ps2pdf distributed with gs 7.x
which was triggered mainly in PS files generated by dvips. The bug was
fixed in 8.x after my bug report. I do not remember the exact version
numbers where it was fixed. so the results may change even with
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)