From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Hendy Subject: Re: Blank page in LaTeX/PDF output Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:46:02 -0600 Message-ID: References: <5311361B.10400@pfdstudio.com> <53113848.2060406@pfdstudio.com> <87wqgefvad.fsf@gmail.com> <5311566D.7030209@pfdstudio.com> <87sir2f5lr.fsf@gmail.com> <5311F34A.7060400@pfdstudio.com> <1393894268.17809.90193409.374029FD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20140304011313.GA7830@pfdstudio-air.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKgIy-00077K-So for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 22:46:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKgIt-0005LX-Lp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 22:46:08 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]:48472) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKgIt-0005LN-Gm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 22:46:03 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id uz6so7833950obc.27 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:46:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140304011313.GA7830@pfdstudio-air.home> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Peter Davis Cc: emacs-orgmode On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Peter Davis wrote: [snip] >> > > Regarding a bug report, if that's what this is, I just googled "latex >> > > bugs" and got this page as the first hit: >> > > - http://latex-project.org/bugs.html >> > > >> > >> > >> > Unfortunately, that site says they can't accept bugs that use any third >> > party packages, and the org-exported LaTeX file starts: >> > >> >> Can you delete all of those lines, recompile with pdflatex, and still reproduce? >> >> If so, you're still good to go! >> > > Unfortunately, it gets a lot of errors if I remove all the \usepackage lines, and I don't know which packages are third party or not. I was able to get rid of them all except for graphicx, and I also was able to replicate with the standard article class :) Here's the pastebin: - http://pastebin.com/WeJXAjw7 I cleaned up some of the text just to remove other contributing candidates (such as changing the tabular to {lll} alignment as not to use p{}, and using just tabular vs. tabular inside table). >From my fiddling: - As-is produces 4 pages, blank 3rd - Commenting out the hyperref package does *not* produce a blank 3rd page - Using \section* does *not* product a blank 3rd page I added a comment linking to Wikipedia's Linux penguin that I used as ./image.png, just to make sure it wasn't possibly related to errors related to no image being found. I wondered if it had something to do with the numbered sections being treated as links (since hyperref was the culprit package). I fiddled with removing \label{sec-n}, but that didn't have an effect. I wondered if that was triggering something due to it having links sort of "ready" for the TOC even though none is present... no idea! Anyway, as long as graphicx and hyperref are not considered "3rd party," I think you could still submit the report. You may be told that since there are overfull hbox and vbox's that it's not their problem, but I'd still expect the results to be the same with \section vs. \section*, and with[out] hyperref. Good luck! John