Re: [BUG] false positive error from org-compile-command [9.7.25 (N/A @ /gnu/store/pya76mlyr24zgwyb6fwv13ab2j04g31h-emacs-org-9.7.25/share/emacs/site-lisp/org-9.7.25/)]

[Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez]

Maybe we should consider using latexmk.
/PA
Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 11 ago 2025, a las 13:05, Christian Moe <m...@christianmoe.com> escribió:
> 
> Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes:
>> 
>> org-compile-file demanded the compilation target to be newer than .tex
>> source, which is apparently too strong requirement.
>> 
>> Fixed, on main.
>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git/commit/?id=499bd92e2
> 
> Looks like the new requirement too is too strong. Any latex error during
> the process now causes export to apparently fail with the message:
> 
>  File "testfile.pdf" wasn't produced
> 
> This happens even if the error is non-critical and a PDF /is/ in fact
> produced. So the error message can be misleading.
> 
> To reproduce, try e.g. adding a bibtex step to org-latex-pdf-process and
> exporting a minimal Org file without a bibliography to PDF.
> 
>  (setq org-latex-pdf-process
>    '("%latex -interaction nonstopmode -output-directory %o %f"
>      "bibtex %f"
>      "%latex -interaction nonstopmode -output-directory %o %f"
>      "%latex -interaction nonstopmode -output-directory %o %f"))
> 
> Other legacy bugs I've found that the PDF export process has so far
> silently forgiven, but now chokes on, include an options mismatch in the
> url package and a character not found in the maths font.
> 
> Assuming that what I see is real and not a result of mixed installation
> or something:
> 
> On the one hand, this has the merit of alerting me to long-standing,
> non-critical flaws in my setup and documents. On the other, it's taken
> time to get to the bottom of them, and I think we will see a lot of
> confused users with documents that exported well enough to PDF but now
> fail. (It may also be at the bottom of some new trouble I'm seeing with
> png export of latex src blocks, but I'm not sure about that.)
> 
> If solving Jake's problem has led to even more false positives, perhaps
> 499bd92e should be reverted? Or is there a more discriminating test
> we could use? If the change is kept, the error message should say the
> PDF was produced with errors when that is what happens.
> 
> Regards,
> Christian
> 
>