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

Bug#222682: tetex-bin: dvipdfm makes big delimiters disappear in this document



Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> schrieb:

> On 02.12.03 Chung-chieh Shan (ken@digitas.harvard.edu) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> At http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~ccshan/debbugs/dvipdfm/ are a
>> single-page DVI file and the PDF file produced from it by dvipdfm.  The
>> \bigl and \bigr delimiters in equation (30) mysteriously disappears in
>> the PDF output.
>> 
> Remark:
>
> \documentclass{minimal}
> \usepackage{amsmath}
> \renewcommand\normalsize{\fontsize{9pt}{10.5pt}\selectfont}
> \begin{document}
> Big delimiters: $\bigl[ \bigr]$ End of test.
> \end{document}
>
> Works fine in Debian stable with backported dvipdfm from unstable.
> Tested with xpdf and acroread.

Uh, I wouldn't dare to call my box stable, it's full of backports. But
yes, dvipdfm is also from unstable (tetex-bin-2.0.2-5.1). And I get the
error. The output is a little different:

> drachi:[hille] >dvipdfm -v a.dvi
>
> a.dvi -> a.pdf
> DVI Comment:  TeX output 2003.12.10:0915
> [1<cmr9@8.97pt(TFM:cmr9)(ENC:ot1r)><cmex9@8.97pt(TFM:cmex9)>](PFB:cmr9)(/var/spool/texmf/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmex9.600pk)
>
> Compression eliminated approximately 1018 bytes
> 10273 bytes written

$ dvipdfm -v 222682-dvipdfm.dvi 

222682-dvipdfm.dvi -> 222682-dvipdfm.pdf
DVI Comment:  TeX output 2003.12.10:1057
[1<cmr9@8.97pt(TFM:cmr9)(ENC:f7b6d320)><cmex9@8.97pt(TFM:cmex9)>](PFB:cmr9)(PFB:fmex9)
Compression eliminated approximately 1402 bytes
10198 bytes written

That is, the encoding is different, f7b6d320 (whatever that means)
compared to ot1r, and the last item is a spool file with you and a PFB
entry here. I don't even have /var/spool/texmf nor
/var/cache/fonts/pk/ljfour/public.

$ locate "ljfour/public"
$

I don't have any idea to interpret that. But perhaps it really has to do
something with encoding, as I found in the README file.

Bye, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie




Reply to: