This is the mail archive of the
ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: CVS PDF-docs
Iztok Zupet wrote:
On Monday 14 October 2002 21:30, Bart Veer wrote:
"Jifl" == Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com> writes:
>> You also need a file called jadetex.cfg in doc/sgml and its
>> subdirectories. It should contain:
>>
>> \hypersetup{pdfpagemode=None, pdfauthor=eCos (pdfjadetex) ,
>> colorlinks=true, linkcolor=blue, pdfstartview=FitH}
Without it, there's nothing about the author in the resulting PDF-s
Since there's no single author, that's good surely?
> and the
links are black, while in the resulting HTML they appear blue, as defined.
It doesn't appear that my (open-)jade installation supports that.
This stuff seems to have more to do with TeX setup than with Jade itself. If
there's a way to implement such a thing that looks like a TeX macro in sgml
stylesheet, I'll do it.
Unfortunately I can't tell until I update to a version of jade that
supports it - only that version would be likely to have any stylesheet
overrides.
Jifl> Wouldn't the link stuff be in a stylesheet? And other than
Jifl> pdfauthor (which I wouldn't have thought would be used) what
Jifl> are the other bits for.
>> \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif,.gif}
That's not needed it's nearly the default;
Cool. I'm wary of hardcoded overrides, especially if they'll be
distributed in jadetex.cfg files all over the place eventually.
Jifl> Why is this needed? It should work without that surely...
Jifl> The names are specified in the ENTITIES.
If You have a wrong name specified in ENTITY, the pdfjadetex complains, and
does not process the picture. According to my knowledge, the valid names in
ENTITIES should be a png or jpg or maybe something else, I haven't tested.
Then we should make sure we have the right names! But I never noticed jade
complaining before with HTML, as it should surely do too in that case?
Agreed, that's why I try to use only the default tools supplied with RH7.3
(seem old enough)
Yeah, a 3 1/2 month old release should be good enough ;).
As for Autoconf/Automake, my opinion is, that the docs should be finally
included into the autoconf/automake process up in the ecos directory, when
the time comes.
autoconf/automake seems like a bit of a sledgehammer approach personally.
It's not like we'd do anything more than give errors if the required
config isn't correct.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ <info@eCosCentric.com>
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine