[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

DVIPS is Generating Bad Postscript!

	Ok, I have a wierd problem here and I am about at wits in trying
to solve it. At some point along the line in the last few months dvips
stopped generating correcting postscript files from dvi files. Specificly,
bullets are getting lost, and worse, any type of equations or mathematical
symbols are getting replaced with some courier looking font and totally
messed up (i.e. where there was an integration symbol, there is not a
capital 'R'!). 
	I am running stock Debian 2.1 on three different machines, two
intels and one alpha, and they all are giving the same problems. After
some comparision with a RH5.2 machine, I was able to track the problem
down to the dvi->ps conversion. DVI files generated on Debian 2.1 convert
to ps just fine on RH5.2, while DVI files generated on RH5.2 have the same
problem when converted to ps on Debian 2.1.
	I have tried downgrading tetex-* packages to the one that came
with Debian 2.0 (via dpkg -r, dpkg --purge, and then dpkg -i), which have
the same version number of dvips (5.78) as RH5.2, but I am still hitting
the same problem.
	If I run latex on a tex file, and then view it with xdvi, the file
looks fine. If I then run dvips on the dvi file and generate a postscript
file, and view it with gv, the document is messed up in terms of bullets
and mathematical equations/symbols.
	I have not seen any reference to this in mailing lists, but since
I have managed to repeat it on three different machines, I am quite
baffled as to what exactly is going on. Any one else ever hit this
problem? Any one have any idea on a solution to this problem? Thanks in
advance for any help you can provide! 

|   "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."                     |
|                                            --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV)    |
|  Ryan Kirkpatrick  |  Boulder, Colorado  | rkirkpat@nag.cs.colorado.edu  |
|               http://www-ugrad.cs.colorado.edu/~rkirkpat/                |

Reply to: