supp-pdf.tex
Timothy Murphy
so that the file supp-pdf.tex is now required
if one wants to include the simple Postscript
created by Metapost in a LaTeX file processed by pdflatex?
IIRC, this did not used to be required -
presumably it was included in the graphicx package?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Heiko Oberdiek
> Has there been a minor change in the graphicx package,
> so that the file supp-pdf.tex is now required
> if one wants to include the simple Postscript
> created by Metapost in a LaTeX file processed by pdflatex?
Of course you need a converter for the PostScript created
by MetaPost. The conversion is done at TeX macro level
by code from Hans Hagen's ConTeXt all the time.
However the file names have changed in the past,
current version is called supp-pdf.mkii, previous supp-pdf.tex:
From pdftex.def:
% 2009/08/25 v0.04m (HO)
% * Catcodes are preserved and initialized for loading of
% pdftex.def and ConTeXt's support files.
% * ConTeXt's support files have now the extension `.mkii' instead
% of `.tex'.
Yours sincerely
Heiko <ober...@uni-freiburg.de>
Timothy Murphy
>> Has there been a minor change in the graphicx package,
>> so that the file supp-pdf.tex is now required
>> if one wants to include the simple Postscript
>> created by Metapost in a LaTeX file processed by pdflatex?
>
> Of course you need a converter for the PostScript created
> by MetaPost. The conversion is done at TeX macro level
> by code from Hans Hagen's ConTeXt all the time.
> However the file names have changed in the past,
> current version is called supp-pdf.mkii, previous supp-pdf.tex:
This doesn't quite answer my query.
As far as I can see, it is now necessary to explicitly include
supp-pdf.mkii or supp-pdf-tex
(it is called the latter in CTAN's macros/pdftex/graphics/)
whereas previously this was automatically brought in,
presumably by the graphicx package.
Is this intentional, or have I misunderstood the position?
José Carlos Santos
>>> Has there been a minor change in the graphicx package,
>>> so that the file supp-pdf.tex is now required
>>> if one wants to include the simple Postscript
>>> created by Metapost in a LaTeX file processed by pdflatex?
>>
>> Of course you need a converter for the PostScript created
>> by MetaPost. The conversion is done at TeX macro level
>> by code from Hans Hagen's ConTeXt all the time.
>> However the file names have changed in the past,
>> current version is called supp-pdf.mkii, previous supp-pdf.tex:
>
> This doesn't quite answer my query.
> As far as I can see, it is now necessary to explicitly include
> supp-pdf.mkii or supp-pdf-tex
> (it is called the latter in CTAN's macros/pdftex/graphics/)
> whereas previously this was automatically brought in,
> presumably by the graphicx package.
>
> Is this intentional, or have I misunderstood the position?
Let me see if I got this straight. Are you claiming that now you need
you need to explicitly mention the file supp-pdf.tex within your .tex
file? No, you shouldn't need to do it. Please consider this LaTeX file:
----------------------------- test.tex --------------------------------
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\listfiles
\begin{document}
\includegraphics{figure.mps}
\end{document}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
as well as this .mps file:
---------------------------- figure.tex -------------------------------
%!PS
%%BoundingBox: -1 -1 29 86
%%Creator: MetaPost
%%CreationDate: 2004.01.25:1933
%%Pages: 1
%%EndProlog
%%Page: 1 1
0 0.5 dtransform truncate idtransform setlinewidth pop [] 0 setdash
1 setlinecap 1 setlinejoin 10 setmiterlimit
newpath 0 0 moveto
28.34645 0 lineto
0 85.03935 lineto
0 0 lineto stroke
0.7 setgray
newpath 0 0 moveto
14.1732 0 lineto
14.1732 42.5196 lineto
0 42.5196 lineto
closepath fill
0 setgray
newpath 0 0 moveto
14.1732 0 lineto
14.1732 42.5196 lineto
0 42.5196 lineto
closepath stroke
showpage
%%EOF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I compile the file test.tex (which does not mention supp-pdf.tex)
with PDFLaTeX, all goes well and the file test.pdf contains the image.
The file test.log says then that the files that I used were:
*File List*
article.cls 2007/10/19 v1.4h Standard LaTeX document class
size10.clo 2007/10/19 v1.4h Standard LaTeX file (size option)
graphicx.sty 1999/02/16 v1.0f Enhanced LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
keyval.sty 1999/03/16 v1.13 key=value parser (DPC)
graphics.sty 2009/02/05 v1.0o Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
trig.sty 1999/03/16 v1.09 sin cos tan (DPC)
graphics.cfg 2007/01/18 v1.5 graphics configuration of teTeX/TeXLive
pdftex.def 2009/08/25 v0.04m Graphics/color for pdfTeX
supp-pdf.tex
figure.mps Graphic file (type mps)
What about you? What do you get with the same files?
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos
José Carlos Santos
> ---------------------------- figure.tex -------------------------------
I meant figure.mps here.
Heiko Oberdiek
> Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
>
> >> Has there been a minor change in the graphicx package,
> >> so that the file supp-pdf.tex is now required
> >> if one wants to include the simple Postscript
> >> created by Metapost in a LaTeX file processed by pdflatex?
> >
> > Of course you need a converter for the PostScript created
> > by MetaPost. The conversion is done at TeX macro level
> > by code from Hans Hagen's ConTeXt all the time.
> > However the file names have changed in the past,
> > current version is called supp-pdf.mkii, previous supp-pdf.tex:
>
> This doesn't quite answer my query.
> As far as I can see, it is now necessary to explicitly include
> supp-pdf.mkii or supp-pdf-tex
No, pdftex.def uses \InputIfFileExists. The ConTeXt support
files can be missing, then you will not have MPS support.
Otherwise the files are loaded automatically.
The exception: If you need extended MetaPost features like
transparency, then \LoadMetPostSpecialExtensions must
be called after loading pdftex.def.
> (it is called the latter in CTAN's macros/pdftex/graphics/)
> whereas previously this was automatically brought in,
> presumably by the graphicx package.
The graphicx package is not relevant. It's frozen, thus many
driver files are maintained independently.
> Is this intentional, or have I misunderstood the position?
I must admit that I don't have understood your problem,
because I don't see a problem here.
Yours sincerely
Heiko <ober...@uni-freiburg.de>
Timothy Murphy
> Let me see if I got this straight. Are you claiming that now you need
> you need to explicitly mention the file supp-pdf.tex within your .tex
> file?
No, that is not what I was saying.
My point was that the file supp-pdf.tex needs to be present,
in my case in ~/texmf/tex/latex/ .
As far as I can see, this wasn't the case before,
and the file does not seem to be provided in my version of TeX Live,
under Fedora-12; I had to download it from CTAN.
Maybe there is some Fedora package I failed to download,
though I think I installed all the relevant "package groups",
in particular "Authoring and Publishing".
Timothy Murphy
>> As far as I can see, it is now necessary to explicitly include
>> supp-pdf.mkii or supp-pdf-tex
>
> No, pdftex.def uses \InputIfFileExists. The ConTeXt support
> files can be missing, then you will not have MPS support.
> Otherwise the files are loaded automatically.
I probably did not express myself clearly.
What I meant was that the file supp-pdf.tex
must be present (in my case, in ~/texmf/tex/latex/),
and it does not seem to be provided in my version of TeX Live
(as supplied by Fedora-12).
So a LaTeX file (containing mps matter) which previously compiled
under pdftex no longer did so until the file supp-pdf.tex was downloaded
and installed in the TeX system.
Perhaps my comment simply refers to the Fedora version of TeX Live?
Robin Fairbairns
>Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
>>> As far as I can see, it is now necessary to explicitly include
>>> supp-pdf.mkii or supp-pdf-tex
>>
>> No, pdftex.def uses \InputIfFileExists. The ConTeXt support
>> files can be missing, then you will not have MPS support.
>> Otherwise the files are loaded automatically.
>
>I probably did not express myself clearly.
>
>What I meant was that the file supp-pdf.tex
>must be present (in my case, in ~/texmf/tex/latex/),
>and it does not seem to be provided in my version of TeX Live
>(as supplied by Fedora-12).
>
>So a LaTeX file (containing mps matter) which previously compiled
>under pdftex no longer did so until the file supp-pdf.tex was downloaded
>and installed in the TeX system.
it has always been the case that supp-pdf was needed for this task.
>Perhaps my comment simply refers to the Fedora version of TeX Live?
it may be that the change of file name (mentioned ^^ somewhere by
heiko) has been interpreted by the fedora people as some sort of claim
that the file is no longer available. that would explain why the file
was present in f11 but not in f12; the problem should be reported to
the red hat people.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
José Carlos Santos
>> Let me see if I got this straight. Are you claiming that now you need
>> you need to explicitly mention the file supp-pdf.tex within your .tex
>> file?
>
> No, that is not what I was saying.
>
> My point was that the file supp-pdf.tex needs to be present,
> in my case in ~/texmf/tex/latex/ .
> As far as I can see, this wasn't the case before,
> and the file does not seem to be provided in my version of TeX Live,
> under Fedora-12; I had to download it from CTAN.
AFAIK, the presence of the file supp-pdf.tex was always required for
compiling a file which contains a picture created by MetaPost, no matter
how simple it is.
Heiko Oberdiek
> Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
>
> >> As far as I can see, it is now necessary to explicitly include
> >> supp-pdf.mkii or supp-pdf-tex
> >
> > No, pdftex.def uses \InputIfFileExists. The ConTeXt support
> > files can be missing, then you will not have MPS support.
> > Otherwise the files are loaded automatically.
>
> I probably did not express myself clearly.
>
> What I meant was that the file supp-pdf.tex
> must be present (in my case, in ~/texmf/tex/latex/),
> and it does not seem to be provided in my version of TeX Live
> (as supplied by Fedora-12).
I don't know, what Fedora is doing. TL 2009 contains both
supp-pdf.mkii and supp-pdf.tex (the latter only inputs the
former).
> So a LaTeX file (containing mps matter) which previously compiled
> under pdftex no longer did so until the file supp-pdf.tex was downloaded
> and installed in the TeX system.
Also previously you had to use the context support files for MPS
inclusion.
Also check the version number of pdftex.def.
Current version is 2009/08/25 v0.04m.
Older versions don't know about supp-pdf.mkii.
> Perhaps my comment simply refers to the Fedora version of TeX Live?
Or it isn't a full installation. I don't know what Fedora ships as TeX
Live.
Yours sincerely
Heiko <ober...@uni-freiburg.de>
Timothy Murphy
> Also check the version number of pdftex.def.
> Current version is 2009/08/25 v0.04m.
> Older versions don't know about supp-pdf.mkii.
/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/pdftex-def/pdftex.def
is dated 2007/01/08 .
>> Perhaps my comment simply refers to the Fedora version of TeX Live?
>
> Or it isn't a full installation. I don't know what Fedora ships as TeX
> Live.
I confess that on further examination I find that
the texlive-texmf-context package - which I hadn't installed before -
does add /usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/supp-pdf.tex (dated 2006.09.02)
to my system.
Peter Flynn
> Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
>
>> Also check the version number of pdftex.def.
>> Current version is 2009/08/25 v0.04m.
>> Older versions don't know about supp-pdf.mkii.
>
> /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/pdftex-def/pdftex.def
> is dated 2007/01/08 .
>
>>> Perhaps my comment simply refers to the Fedora version of TeX Live?
>> Or it isn't a full installation. I don't know what Fedora ships as TeX
>> Live.
>
> I confess that on further examination I find that
> the texlive-texmf-context package - which I hadn't installed before -
> does add /usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/supp-pdf.tex (dated 2006.09.02)
> to my system.
As this file is (apparently) a dependency of the graphics bundle, which
is core, should this package should also be core?
///Peter