On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:34:38 -0400 (EDT), Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 at 5:03am, Jindrich Novy <jnovy(a)redhat.com>
wrote
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 21:33 +0100, Kostas Georgiou wrote:
>>
>> So, is a dvi viewer needed in core?
>
> It depends. One can use pdftex/pdflatex instead of tex/latex so that DVI
> viewers (and gv, dvips) are not needed in this case as the PDF is the
> only output. The dvips + gv way isn't always too smooth and I have to
> say that xdvi is still the best dvi viewer despite of its age.
>
> If the most of the teTeX users accepts the usage of pdftex tools, then
> moving at least some of the dvi tools to Extras makes sense.
In contrast to your experience, I've always found latex/dvips to be
smoother and less error prone than pdflatex. And to agree with your
other point, xdvi is definitely the best DVI viewer. Viewing the .dvi
What about Active-DVI¹. It's the one recommended by whizzytex².
is the way just about all the teTeX users I support work -- why
bother
emedding the images in an output file until you really need to?
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
Footnotes:
¹
http://pauillac.inria.fr/advi/#requirements
²
http://cristal.inria.fr/whizzytex/
--
Leon