[tex-k] A question on inclusion of poscript file into LaTeX document

Robin Fairbairns Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk
Tue Sep 16 10:15:22 CEST 2008

Andrew Komornicki <komornic at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I have a question about the behavior of Latex/pdflatex when one
> wants to include a figure in the form of a postscript file.
> my test file does a simple \includegraphics of a postscript file.
> Eventually I would like to create a pdf file as a final document.
> A simple test file is found at the end of this brief note.
>
>  this is a current version of TeX/Latex as the log file shows:
> This is pdfeTeX, Version 3.141592-1.21a-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.4)
> (format=latex 2008.2.17)  8 SEP 2008 16:36 entering extended mode

(not particularly "current", actually, but no matter).

> Have run my test file in three(3) modes.
>
>   1.  latex axx.tex
>        --  runs correctly and produces a dvi file
>
>   2.  latex axx.tex
>         the file contains the directive \pdfoutput = 1
>         the run aborts with the comment:
>      Non-PDF special ignored!
>      Non-PDF special ignored!
>      Non-PDF special ignored!] (./axx.aux) )
>      -- note, no pdf file produced.......

graphics package had detected latex, and set itself up for dvips output.

>   3.  pdflatex axx.tex
>        the run aborts with the comment:
>     ! LaTeX Error: Unknown graphics extension: .ps.
>      -- note, no pdf file produced.......

because pdflatex graphics can only cope with pdf, png or jpg,

>   My question is whether this behavior is correct and expected.

yes.

> if so why?  should not all three of these modes produce a correct
> output file, whether  dvi, or pdf ??

no.

see http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=impgraph and its
careful path through the various versions of latex and their
capabilities.

(note, the faq answer doesn't cope with xetex or luatex, yet.)

r