Peter W. Draper wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Tim Jenness wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Peter W. Draper wrote:
>>>
>>>  Spoke too soon as the broken images under Ubuntu magically fixed
>>>  themselves when I regenerated the docs (no longer convinced that was 
>>> the
>>>  same problem).
> 
> Actually take that back again, the same problem was present in Ubuntu 
> until sometime in February (when an update of netbpm was issued, tracing 
> the fixes back upstream sufficiently far eventually locates the real 
> patch).

The latest version of netpbm in Fedora 8 (netpbm-10.35.32-2.fc8.x86_64) 
fixed the problem when I rebuilt the docs from a svn checkout. I had to 
build dvi2bitmap by hand by cd'ing to the directory as the top-level 
makefile etc seemed to expect it in applications/dvi2bitmap whereas it 
was actually in thirdparty/norman/dvi2bitmap. I also had to pass the 
--without-kpathsea option to ./configure as it wouldn't link to the 
static library otherwise (as previously noted by TimJ)

> 
>>>  Anyway, cutting this long story short, managed to also find a RHEL/5
>>>  machine at Durham (thanks again to Alan Lotts), and the problem
>>>  finally became reproducable.
>>>
>>>  The issue is known, see:
>>>
>>>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=337181
>>>
>>>  So nothing to do except look for an update to netbpm, or build it
>>>  ourselves.
>>
>> can we turn off interlace option? Or switch to generating png?
> 
> Yes and no. The only way to switch off interlacing is to modify the 
> global setup of latex2html (there's no command-line option). It's a 
> simple two-liner if we want to do this?
> 
> (PNG support is supposed to be available in latex2html "our versions", 
> but I couldn't get it to work).
> 
>> Can we take this opportunity to update latex2html to version 2002-2 
>> (http://ctan.tug.org/tex-archive/support/latex2html/ - which doesn't 
>> seem to be much newer than 98.2 but does have a configure script)?
> 
> Maybe, it seems to do a reasonable job of some documents I've tried, but 
> we still have a load of documents that require the old latex2html 97.1 
> version, never mind the 98.2 version (our latest), so we'd either have 
> to finally fix all the old documents 
> (http://www.starlink.ac.uk/star/docs/sun199.htx/node33.html),
> or continue to carry two versions of latex2html. Not much gain.
> 
>> Or is there a better package out there for this sort of thing?
> 
> Not that I'm aware of, plus we're quite tied to latex2html, all the HTX 
> extensions would have to be ported, plus the parts of latex2html that we 
> use for HTML specific content.
> 
> I'd guess there's about 1 week of work to do the update from 98.2 to 2002.2
> 
> Peter.
> 

Cheers,
	TimL

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=                                                               =
= Dr. Tim Lister (Astronomer & LCO Project Scientist)           =
= Las Cumbres Observatory, 6740B Cortona Drive, Goleta,CA 93117 =
= email: [log in to unmask]                                      =
= icbm: 34 25 57 N 119 51 46.0 W  +7m                           =
=          /* Halley */           (Halleys' comment)            =
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-