From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/2810 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Joop Susan Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: metafun manual Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:25:10 +0200 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <20000925182510.9922.qmail@crux.private.off-line> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035393584 12009 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:19:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:19:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ntg-context@ntg.nl Original-To: Hans Hagen Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:2810 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:2810 Hallo, > >'texexec test1' complains: > > > >Randomizer initialized to 949889678. > >figures : figure mpgraph can not be found > >[1.1{/usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/pdftex.map}] > >......... > >Sorry, I can't find the mem file `metafun.mem'; will try `mpost.mem'. > >(mpgraph.mp ) > >Transcript written on mpgraph.log. > > > >mpgraph.log says: > > texexec --make --alone metafun > > will make you a metafun format (check if the mem is moved to the right > web2c path and run mktexlsr) Ok. I only used 'fmtutil -all' after every ConTEXt/pdftex update. Better to use 'texexec'? The file is created in the current directory and I moved it to /usr/share/texmf/web2c. After 'mktexlsr' the file is now found. > >This is MetaPost, Version 0.641 (Web2C 7.3.1) (mem=mpost 2000.4.26) 26 > >APR 2000 18:56 > >**&metafun mpgraph > >(mpgraph.mp ) No change. 'mpost mpgraph.mp' later also writes to this file. This is MetaPost, Version 0.641 (Web2C 7.3.1) (mem=mpost 2000.4.26) 26 APR 2000 18:56 **mpgraph.mp (mpgraph.mp {randomseed:=222} (/usr/share/texmf/metapost/context/mp-tool.mp) (/usr/share/texmf/metapost/context/mp-spec.mp) (/usr/share/texmf/metapost/context/mp-page.mp) (/usr/share/texmf/metapost/context/mp-core.mp) [1] [2] [3] ) 3 output files written: mpgraph.1 .. mpgraph.3 > > > >'mpost mpgraph.mp' does generate mpgraph.1. > >'gv mpgraph.1' shows the correct figure. > >A second run 'texexec test1' now generates a complete PDF file. > > > >Can you tell me why texexec cannot get this right in one run? > > Normally it generates the graphic runtime, in which case one run is needed. > Otherwise it will run mp between runs, but it does not parse all mp files > for changes. So, then you may need a second run. Is there any way of automatically detecting this situation. Or does this mean that the only sure automated way to get a complete guaranteed up-to-date PDF file is to run: rm -f test1.tui test1.tuo test1.tmp test1.top rm -f mpgraph.[0-9]* mpgraph.mp mpgraph.log tmpgraph.* cont-opt.bak texexec --pdf test1 mpost mpgraph.mp texexec --pdf test1 Would it be safe to specify 'texexec --pdf --once test1' for the second run given that the temp-files are now all up-to-date? It seems to work for my current testfile. Specifying '--once' for the first run makes the 'mpost' fail. The first run is also necessary when arranging pages. So I could add '--noarrange' there as well, right? This is the brute force solution, possibly at the expence of extra processing time. Is this a bullet-proof final run? Thanks, Joop