On Tuesday 04 August 2009 00:31:23 brian m. carlson wrote:
> > pdfroff test1.tr >test1.pdf
> > acroread test1.pdf
> >
> >
> > Two copies of the document are contained in test1.pdf
>
> Yes, I discovered this the other day. It's Debian bug 538326:
It is not a bug; it is how pdfroff performs collati
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:16:46AM +0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> It is working as intended. It's a bit kludgy, I know, but for the
> time being, if you didn't set it up with a TOC section, *you* have
> to tell pdfroff that there is no such section to collate, by adding
> the --no-toc-relocatio
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 16:17:35 brian m. carlson wrote:
> > BTW, pdfroff is designed to work in conjunction with
> > pdfmark.tmac; omitting that seems rather unusual.
>
> Okay. I read the list, so I was aware that it was intended to
> make using the pdfmark package easier; however, I assumed th
[Deri, I hope it's OK with you that I cite from your private email to
me.]
> My main motivation for using pdfroff instead of plain groff -Tps is
> that ghostscript (and all the document viewers based on it) produces
> (IMO) ugly font output when viewing PostScript files in X, whereas
> poppler p
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 19:58:04 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> [Deri, I hope it's OK with you that I cite from your private email to
> me.]
>
Fine.
>
> Some weeks ago Deri James sent me a first implementation of a gropdf
> driver; I've uploaded it temporarily to
>
> http://groff.ffii.org/groff/gro
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 16:17:35 brian m. carlson wrote:
> My main motivation for using pdfroff instead of plain groff -Tps
> is that ghostscript (and all the document viewers based on it)
> produces (IMO) ugly font output when viewing PostScript files in
> X, whereas poppler produces nice output
