# [tex-live] What is the right way to include eps in latex for pdf generating?

Lars Madsen daleif at math.au.dk
Mon Nov 10 15:30:19 CET 2014

```Depends on you mood. If it works for you, then use the that method.

Sometimes I use a PDF version made using mptopdf sometimes I use the .1, .2, etc files directly

(all with pdflatex). It works just fine.

Institut for Matematik / Department of Mathematics
Aarhus Universitet / Aarhus University
Mere info: http://au.dk/daleif@imf / More information: http://au.dk/en/daleif@imf

________________________________________
Sent: 10 November 2014 14:52
Cc: TeX Live; Akira Kakuto
Subject: Re[4]: [tex-live] What is the right way to include eps in latex for pdf generating?

> Because .eps is not a supported extension for use with pdflatex.
OK, thanks.
> In standard LaTeX you have the same thing, *everything* is assumed to be EPS no matter the extension.
So, what is the right way to include mpost in latex for pdf generating? X_X
At the moment I see the two right ways:
1. The way I used before
.mp: outputtemplate:="%j.%c"; (default)
.tex: \usepackage{graphicx}
.tex: \includegraphics{file.1}
shell: mpost file.mp
shell: latex file.tex
shell: dvipdfm file.dvi
2. The way from http://math.berkeley.edu/~vojta/tex/samp-l/mpost.html
.mp: outputtemplate:="%j%c.mps";
.tex: \usepackage{graphicx}
.tex: \includegraphics{file1.mps} (or \includegraphics{file1})
shell: mpost file.mp
shell: pdflatex file.tex

Both work. But what of them are the right way? The first one is better because it uses standard "latex", which generates .dvi (device independent file), which is supposed to be converted to other formats (this is original Knuth's intention). The second one is better because it generates pdf directly from tex.
So, what is the right one? What is philosophically better? What is used in mathematical world? What is used by mathematical journals? What is expected by journals when sending papers to them? What is the best for distributing works and publishing them in the internet?

```