From Stephen.Harker at spme.monash.edu.au  Tue Nov 25 06:57:08 2003
From: Stephen.Harker at spme.monash.edu.au (Stephen.Harker@spme.monash.edu.au)
Date: Tue Nov 25 23:26:16 2003
Subject: [Rd] R postscript generation error (lines versus points) (PR#5285)
In-Reply-To: <3FC26745.50807@stat.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <20031124032202.820FCEFC2@slim.kubism.ku.dk>
	<x2islat94a.fsf@biostat.ku.dk> <3FC26745.50807@stat.auckland.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <20031125055708.GA16069@harker.spme.monash.edu.au>

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:17:09AM +1300, Paul Murrell wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> > Stephen.Harker@spme.monash.edu.au writes:
> >
> >>Full_Name: Stephen Harker
> >>Version: 1.80
> >>OS: linux (Yellow Dog 3.0 on ppc)
> >>Submission from: (NULL) (130.194.13.101)
> >>
> >>
> >>In creating a postscript file from a set of data in which the points are
> >>plotted
> >>using `points()' and lines drawn using `lines()' I have found since 
> upgrading
> >>from R version 1.4? to 1.8 that the two sets do not coinicide 
> completely.  [...]
> >
> > I can't reproduce this with 1.8.0 on RedHat 8.0. Are you sure it isn't
> > your Postscript viewer that is playing tricks on you??

After further checking I find that this is the solution, despite my
previous email saying it could not be the case.  I have now downgraded
to gs 8.00 on /usr/local/bin (previously gs 8.11) and all postscript
output views correctly even in the LaTeX documents using production
output of neutron and x-ray powder diffraction that were previously
causing problems.  That is to say that documents that previously
exhibited the problem now don't.

More surprsingly (to me) the printed output is correct.  I have my
printer queues set up using CUPS and appropriate ppd files specific
for our departmental printers.  As these are postscript printers and
the correct PPD files are used I had assumed this meant ghostscript
was not interacting with the printing.  I was most surprised to
discover this assumption must be wrong.  It would appear that gs is in
the loop with a postscript file being sent to a postscript printer as
I have them setup.

I will now have to work on a bug report for ghostscript 8.11.  It
appears I blamed the wrong upgrade (R rather than ghostscript,
encouraged by the printed results).  I knew I had upgraded the two
close together, but had not checked the dates sufficiently.  I assume
this closes this `bug report' unless you wish to be informed of any
progress in isolating the problem in gs 8.11.

-- 
Stephen Harker                           Stephen.Harker@spme.monash.edu.au
School of Physics & Materials Engineering
Monash University                       http://www.ph.adfa.edu.au/s-harker/
                                 Baloney Baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell


[Rd] R postscript generation error (lines versus points) (PR#5285)
Stephen.Harker@spme.monash.edu.au