[OS X TeX] More distiller flexibility in TeXShop (was: Page origin problem with TeXLive and dvips)

[Roberto Avanzi]

On 2 Feb 2007, at 09:30, Bruno Voisin wrote:

> Le 2 févr. 07 à 08:32, Roberto Avanzi a écrit :
>
>> So _that_ area of the misc panel would become
>>
>> Distiller and specific options
>> +-----------------------------------------------+
>> | O   Ghostscript       [____________________]  |
>> |         [] Do not Automatically Rotate Pages  |
>> | O   Apple Distiller   [____________________]  |
>> | O   Other    [Path]   [____________________]  |
>> +-----------------------------------------------+
>>
>> Where [________] denotes a text input field and the [Path]
>> button(s) allow you to set the paths to the command line tools.
>> In the second
>> Everything is optional here, but Richard Koch could tell us
>> whether this is feasible without much hassle.  One could append
>> the command line options to the  distillerprog  string.
>
> I don't think that is feasible with the current simpdftex: it seems  
> simpdftex does not allow options to be included in its internal  
> variables ${texprogram} (= tex or pdftex or omega or ...), ${dvips}  
> (dvips or odvips) and ${distillerprog} (as selected by --distiller).

yes, that's strange.
I guess it is to admit spaces in file names, but, WHY do I read, on  
line 538 of
simpdftex

"${distillerprog}" "${psfile}" "${pdffile}" || \

changing it to

${distillerprog} "${psfile}" "${pdffile}" || \

would of course work. oh well.
Yes, the best idea would be to change simpdftex OR ps2pdfwr (probably  
the former)
including  --distiller-opts or even better  --distilleropts, and  
giving back
the change including the rationale behind it.  No idea how to do it,  
but it seems
to be a file by Gerben, so he would know how to broadcast this.

Changing TeXShop too would give us a lot of additional flexibility,  
enabling us
to use the new option, without having to mess the files again in the  
future for
every tiny change.

>
> [...] but I am under the impression that what you suggest requires  
> modification of simpdftex anyway.

most likely, yes

  Roberto



------------------------- Helpful Info -------------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/
List Reminders & Etiquette: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/list/