Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:03:50 +1000
This is the other major question I get asked: how do I make sure the system reads my
new collection of macros and not something elsewhere which has the same name?
That's why I used \UQincludegraphics. I've suggested that they label their own packages
MyOwnNamePackage (substitute appropriately for MyOwnName) to avoid clashes - it's worked so far,
but I then give them a very strong warning that the resulting source code isn't transferable,
and the safest way is to include it between
[code inserted here]
in the preamble.
TeX/LaTeX is good, and at least all the code is accessible, so with a few years (decades?) of
experience most requests can be answered fairly quickly - as long as they consult me about problems.
From: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project on behalf of Robin Fairbairns
Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 5:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: \includegraphics, eps, pdf, and \write18
Kenneth Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Here at the University of Queensland, at a rough estimate, I spend as much time
> helping staff with the eps-pdf problem in graphics as with all their other
> problems in LaTeX combined.
> I've occasionally thought about doing something with \includegraphics after copying it to
> \UQincludegraphics, but that would make most files using it not usable
> outside UQ.
a modified graphics package (however modified) doesn't solve the
portability problem -- old versions of packages remain on people's
machines for a very long time indeed. (i've got tetex 1, 2 and 3 on
this machine, but then i'm that sort of person...)
if _you_ have the up-to-date package (which works with the latest pdftex
with the whizzy "selective" \write18) your document isn't going to work
any better on my old machine than would a document using