How to pipe dvips output through Ghostscript?
Richard Stanton
stanton@haas.berkeley.edu
Sun, 14 Mar 1999 14:24:30 -0800
I'm trying without success to pipe the output from dvips through
Ghostscript, and thence to a Deksjet 550 printer.
If I run dvips to create a PS file, say utah99.ps, and then at the command
line type
type utah99.ps | gswin32c -sDEVICE=cdj550 -dNOPAUSE -
The file is printed perfectly on my printer, as expected. Now I want to
achieve the same result in one step, piping the output from dvips directly
into gswin32c. However, I can't manage to get this to work.
If I try the following:
dvips utah99 -n 1 -o | gswin32c -sDEVICE=cdj550 -dNOPAUSE -
I just get a PS file, and nothing comes out of the printer.
If I try
dvips utah99 -n 1 -o "| gswin32c -sDEVICE=cdj550 -dNOPAUSE -",
I get the following output:
This is dvips(k) 5.83 Copyright 1998 Radical Eye Software
(www.radicaleye.com)
' TeX output 1999.02.09:1437' -> | gswin32c -sDEVICE=cdj550 -dNOPAUSE -
<texc.pro>Aladdin Ghostscript 5.50 (1998-9-11)
Copyright (C) 1998 Aladdin Enterprises, Menlo Park, CA. All rights
reserved.
This software comes with NO WARRANTY: see the file PUBLIC for details.
The mswindll device is not supported by the command line version of
Ghostscript. Select a different device using -sDEVICE= as described
in Use.htm.
Error: /undefinedfilename in (gswin32c)
Operand stack:
Execution stack:
%interp_exit
.runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-
Dictionary stack:
--dict:846/941(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:49/200(L)--
Current allocation mode is local
Last OS error: No such file or directory
<pstricks.pro><8r.enc><texps.pro><special.pro>. Loading Helvetica font from
c:\p
Loading Helvetica-Oblique font from c:\psfonts\hvo_____.pfb... 1943486
601943 14
Loading Helvetica-Bold font from c:\psfonts\hvb_____.pfb... 1983666 634771
14497
GS>
Trying the following:
dvips utah99 -n 1 -o | "gswin32c.exe -sDEVICE=cdj550 -"
yields
Unknown command "gswin32c -sDEVICE"
What can I do to get this to work? I've tried playing with config.ps, with
essentially the same results.
Richard Stanton