Hi mikkel,
> Do you guys know what this is all about:
> /usr/local/bin/grops:signatur.eps:15: not an integer
> ??
I found https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2012-08/msg00039.html
but there wasn't a clear resolution.
> The PSPIC request in the file look like this
> .PSPIC signature.eps
How
Morning Dominic,
> > Presumably on your system you still have URW fonts available in .pfb
> > format (on my system they are now installed as .otf fonts).
>
> I'm not sure of the format -- the font files don't appear to have a
> distinguishing suffix.
file(1) might help.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https:
I am on work now. Can not check, but could it be that since I cm not using
any macro packages I should use lower case letter.
.pspic instead of .PSPIC ??
Den 24. aug. 2017 11.50 AM skrev "Ralph Corderoy" :
> Hi mikkel,
>
> > Do you guys know what this is all about:
> > /usr/local/bin/grops:signa
Good morning,
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:51:24 +0100
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > > Presumably on your system you still have URW fonts available in .pfb
> > > format (on my system they are now installed as .otf fonts).
> >
> > I'm not sure of the format -- the font files don't appear to have a
> > dist
Hi mikkel,
> I am on work now. Can not check, but could it be that since I cm not
> using any macro packages I should use lower case letter.
No, if `.PSPIC' was an unknown macro then it, and its arguments, would
just be ignored, like this `.XXPIC' where the `bar' doesn't appear.
$ printf '%s
Hi Ralph,
On 24/08/17 13:43, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> It seems the macro .PSPIC is present without asking for it. I don't see
> groff_tmac(5) pointing this out.
It appears to me that it does:
$ man 5 groff_tmac
...
pspic
A single macro is provided in this file, PSPIC, to include a
Hi Keith,
> > It seems the macro .PSPIC is present without asking for it. I don't
> > see groff_tmac(5) pointing this out.
>
> It appears to me that it does:
...
> This macro file is already loaded at start-up by troff so it
> isn't necessary to call it explicitly.
Yes, you're quite ri
I think there must be a bug in the version og groff that I'v got. It sais
the same thing no matter what eps i use. Also eps'es that I'v med work
befor years ago with at other version og groff.
Ok it is not the version of groff. ( changed to an older one and got same
thing.) However. I fund that it print this error massag but actually still
get the image in the fill so I guess it is not a big problem after all :-)
Mikkel
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:37 PM, mikkel meinike wrote:
> I think
The eps I used was generated with
sam2p
Now I tryed to generat it with gimp and I don't get the error massag from
using that file
Hi Mikkel,
On 24/08/17 17:52, mikkel meinike wrote:
> The eps I used was generated with
>
> sam2p
That's the same tool that was the subject of the Debian bug report, to
which Ralph pointed you (indirectly) earlier; it embeds a malformed:
%%BeginData:
record into the generated EPS file.
> N
On 25/08/17 03:23:25, Keith Marshall wrote:
So, presumably gimp is not emitting such malformed records. If you
examine the gnu.eps file, as distributed with groff itself, you may
observe that it doesn't have any %%BeginData record at all, so such a
record is, apparently, unnecessary.
At t
12 matches
Mail list logo
