On 06.05.12 marc.carter-ceqo...@cool.fr.nf (marc.carter-ceqo...@cool.fr.nf) wrote:
Hi, > > After exchanging both \usepackage commands the minimal example > > compiles fine. Could you confirm if the document generates the > > expected results? > > Indeed, swapping the two \usepackage statements works. Thanks for the > workaround! > > Ultimatetly this is still a bug to fix though, IMO. The workaround > is not easy to discover. In fact, the original document had many > \usepackage statements, and it took some effort just to discover > which two packages were in conflict. Minimally, I would expect the > graphicx package to notice that invoice.sty had already been > loaded, and give a specific error about the needed sequencing. > Sorry, from time to time it happens that the load order *does* matter. A prominent example is hyperref (IIRC). If you can proof that the load order in your case is *not* FAD it is probably a bug. Please be so kind to track that yourself, we won't find time to do so. And please be so kind to ask your local LUG, we are not the LaTeX helpline. H. -- sigmentation fault -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
