Enrico Forestieri schrieb: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:34:30AM +0100, Georg Baum wrote: > >> Am Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 22:09 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: >>> I am wondering if it is worth trying such a check when deciding whether >>> ps2pdf or epstopdf is to be used, instead of defining a further pdf4 >> format. >> >> How much work would that be? At the moment I tend to prefer the first >> solution I outlined yesterday: If an included graphics file is detected as >> PS always convert it to EPS first, and don't care whether it is in reality >> already an EPS file. That would both fix this problem, and also fix the >> case where somebody includes a real PS without bounding box, e.g. a result >> from "print to file" of a program that does not have good graphics export. >> >> Could you add this bug to bugzilla please so that we don'tz forget it? > > I could do that, but perhaps it is simpler to follow the suggestion > by Herbert. I tested it with both MikTeX and teTeX and it works. > > Essentially, we should replace the converter from postscript to pdf > as follows: > > pspdf13 -dAutoRotatePages#/None $$i $$o
why ps2pdf13?? This is a regression. It should be ps2pdf, then the user can decide, what version he wants to use. With ps2pdf14 you can activate transparency colors, but not with version 1.2 or 1.3 Herbert
