Please drop the DVI-with-pdfTeX hack! (was:
Re: hfoldsty und microtype - font problem)
shuntim.luk at polyu.edu.hk
Tue Sep 6 11:52:39 CEST 2005
Karl Berry wrote:
> Doesn't that mean that even ifpdf.sty hasn't been adapted to work
> with this hack?
> ifpdf.sty needs no adaptation.
> What is your view instead, Karl?
> I do agree that, despite everything, relatively few documents ever did
> \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined (or anything else) in the first place -- most
> documents I've seen are written knowing whether they are going to
> processed via pdflatex or latex/dvips/etc., and don't bother with any
I'd like to offer my few cents as a user.
I used almost exclusive latex (for a long time) to get ps output and
pdflatex (more recently) to get pdf. I was thinking, until a few weeks
ago, that latex and pdflatex/pdftex were entirely two different animals.
One annoyance is, of course, you can only include certain graphics
format when you use latex (latex --> dvi --> ps) and other formats when
you use pdflatex directly and therefore, you have to edit the latex
source when you change the compiler. Then I discovered using \ifpdf in
some FAQ. After following this thread, it would seem that as a user,
just use \ifpdf and everything will be fine as invoking *either* latex
or pdflatex are in fact invoking the *same* programme. That is, users
don't need to use the \ifx\pdfoutput\... check *at all*.
I'd happy if this understanding is correct and I'd have learnt something
from following this (and for me, not totally comprehensible) thread.
More information about the tex-live