Maarten,
Thanks for the reply. I don't think graphics is the culprit in my case,
since some of the buggered files contained no graphics (unless you count
colored backgrounds for titles, but I'm pretty sure that does not
require ghostscript or imagemagick). Still, I may take a crack at
upgrading ghostscript and see if that cures the problem.
Regards,
Paul
Sanders, Maarten (M.J.L.) wrote:
Paul,
I have had a similar error on a mandrake 2005 system, though with
ps2pdf. It turned out to be a problem with graphics and the ghostscript
version. After I installed mandrake rpm ghostscript-8.15-16mdk.i586.rpm
instead of 8.15-22 the problem was gone.
Hope this gives you some pointers,
Maarten
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul A. Rubin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:30 AM
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Subject: Beamer/pdflatex mystery
This one is for the LaTeX gurus in the group:
I have 18 Beamer presentations generated the usual way
(created in LyX,
output using pdflatex). To service a student request <sigh>,
I loaded
each one into Acrobat Pro 7 and used the menu option to enable
commenting by Acrobat Reader. This leads Acrobat Pro to do arcane
things (measured by a progress bar) and then write out a
modified copy
of the file.
On 14 files, this worked fine; on four, it aborted midway
with an error
message that Acrobat could not read the file. The message is
probably a
bit misleading, as both Acrobat Pro and Acrobat Reader displayed all
pages of each file correctly on screen. Poking around with Pro's
"preflight" tool (which I think is more or less analogous to
chklatex),
I got a message on the four recalcitrant files that the document
structure was corrupt.
So I returned to LyX and generated those four presentations using the
straight PDF output option, rather than pdflatex. All four
files passed
visual muster, and Acrobat Pro was perfectly happy to enable
commenting
on all four. Other than considerable time wasted hunting the bug and
work-around, the only (minor) problem is that the
non-pdflatex versions
are *much* bigger than their pdflatex cousins.
I can't find anything that differentiates the winners from the losers
here. It's not the presence of graphics (at least one of the
four had
none), it's not the presence of math insets (several of the 14 that
worked had math insets), ...
Does anyone have any idea what pdflatex might be doing to offend the
Gods of Document Structure (particularly in a way that does not stop
Acrobat or Acrobat Reader from displaying the document correctly)?
TIA,
Paul
