Dear David,
this is a good question. I didn't want to push but just point out the relevance of the issue, believing that you feel a personal appreciation (and/or certain responsibility) for a code you officially maintain.
If I had the expertise to fix the code on my own, I would not have spent the time to find and bother you, but better invest it to produce the solution and propose it to you.
If you ask for money - that could be a problem. I have no idea on the time needed to find the problem, to fix and to test it. Hiring a professional is probably beyond my budget as I am just an academics. As such, I am volunteering as well in multiple matters, trying to improve things - so I think when it comes to projects driven by enthusiastism, I share your engagement, but I don't think that a spirit of needing individual payments will lead to a better future for open source projects. If this was the way to go, I'd better buy a commercial text processor I can afford and stick with it.
But I am in the weaker position and already spent lots of time in a LaTeX-based thesis, so please let me know a price, and I have to see...
Thanks and best wishes,
Tobias
"Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann@uni-due.de> writes:
> Hi Ikumi, David
>
> this is a bad situation. I am quite surprised I am the first (and only?) one
> to stumble across this:
> - Most scientific works use vector EPS graphics. psfrag is extremely popular
> in this field.
> - Most works are published in PDF
> - You can't get around hyperref
>
> The combination of pstool and pdfLaTeX seems to be the most promising
> approach to me to join these points in one toolchain. Living with an old
> version might work for some months, but this can't be the future.
>
> So there's no pathway and this toolchain is dead forever?
>
> Thanks for your appreciated comment,
So what are you willing to invest to avert the catastrophe? In terms of
procuring code or paying for the time of those who do?
--
David Kastrup
smime.p7s