Different pdf output on two different systems

[dreamos82]

Hello everyone, So i have 3 different systems:

1. The first running on debian testing with pandoc 3.1.11.1
2. Second running on OpenSuse with pandoc 3.6
3. A github runner that generate the book itself that is running pandoc 3.1.3

all of them are using lua 5.4

Now i have a pretty big multiple markdown files project that i convert into a pdf book using pandoc., and pdflatex
The problem is that using system 1 and 3 the output is identycal (or if there is a difference is not noticeable), same number of pages, same format etc.

But when i use the second system, i see that the output is 30 pages bigger, and one of the most noticeable differences is the toc:

Here a screenshot of the first page of the table of contents using system 3:

And this is the screenshot using system2:

Both pdf are generated using the same script, and these are the flags that i use in that script:

-s --resource-path=$(pwd) --toc --top-level-division=chapter -f markdown+raw_tex -t pdf --pdf-engine=pdflatex -N --lua-filter .pandoc/makerelative.lua

The pdf in both cases is correctly generated, no warnings, no errors.

Now as you can see there is a big difference. The problem is that i'm not sure how to fix it, and where should i look for.

Does anyone could provide some advice please?

Thanks a million,
Ivan

[alerque]

The version and package set of TeXLive (or whatever TeX installation you are using) and the available fonts is going to be a relevant data point.

[dreamos82]

Ok, these are the texlive-* versions on opensuse:

MyRouter:~ # zypper install --no-recommends texlive texlive-fvextra texlive-geometry texlive-appendix texlive-fancyhdr texlive-float texlive-mdwtools
Loading repository data...
Reading installed packages...
'texlive' is already installed.
No update candidate for 'texlive-2024.20240311-101.3.x86_64'. The highest available version is already installed.
'texlive-geometry' is already installed.
No update candidate for 'texlive-geometry-2024.216.5.9svn61719-56.2.noarch'. The highest available version is already installed.
'texlive-appendix' is already installed.
No update candidate for 'texlive-appendix-2024.216.1.2csvn53718-57.2.noarch'. The highest available version is already installed.
'texlive-fancyhdr' is already installed.
No update candidate for 'texlive-fancyhdr-2024.216.4.1svn64977-55.2.noarch'. The highest available version is already installed.
'texlive-float' is already installed.
No update candidate for 'texlive-float-2024.216.1.3dsvn15878-56.2.noarch'. The highest available version is already installed.
'texlive-fvextra' is already installed.
No update candidate for 'texlive-fvextra-2024.216.1.6.1svn69001-56.2.noarch'. The highest available version is already installed.
'texlive-mdwtools' is already installed.
No update candidate for 'texlive-mdwtools-2024.216.1.05.4svn15878-55.3.noarch'. The highest available version is already installed.
Resolving package dependencies...

These are the packages installed in debian:

texlive-base/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed]
texlive-binaries/testing,now 2024.20240313.70630+ds-5+b1 amd64 [installed,automatic]
texlive-fonts-recommended/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed,automatic]
texlive-latex-base/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed,automatic]
texlive-latex-extra/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed,automatic]
texlive-latex-recommended/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed,automatic]
texlive-pictures/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed,automatic]
texlive-plain-generic/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed,automatic]
texlive-xetex/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed]
texlive/testing,now 2024.20241115-1 all [installed]

[alerque]

Those are pretty different versions of texlive. Also it isn't clear what fonts are available for each. That might matter too.

My next step would probably be to use pandoc to output the LaTeX intermediary format (rather than the final PDF) from each system and diff those and see if there are any template differences that seem relevant. I suspect not, but it would be the easiest thing to fix if it turns out to be the case.

After that I would start with a minimal latex file directly (you can generate one with echo "a couple lines worth of text here" | pandoc -s -t latex) and compare the output when compiled with LaTeX. If the line spacing and such is the same, work your way up from there to your actual document until you know what element is being handled differently, then figure out how to configure that bit in LaTeX.

[dreamos82]

is there a way to figure out what font is being used by pandoc/texlive during the build??

[badumont]

The difference may arise from changes in the LaTeX template used by Pandoc to generate the LaTeX file. If you want that the PDF of 2 be identical with those of 1 and 3, it may be feasible by running the following steps: 1. Get the default LaTeX template used in 1 or 3 by running pandoc -D latex 2. Put it in 2 in the directory ~/.local/share/pandoc/templates/ (e.g. under the name old-latex-template) 3. In 2, add --template=old-latex-template to you pandoc command. Depending on the content of your files, you may get “undefined command” errors. In that case, you would have to compare the default LaTeX template of 2 with old-latex-template and adapt the latter to provide the required commands. But I hope that you will not.

[dreamos82]

Ok thanks, i'll give it a try!

[dreamos82]

I tried to copy the template in that folder, but pandoc doesn't like it.
It looks like it is only searching for it here: /usr/share/pandoc-3.6/data/templates/old-latex-template.latex

So i get this error:

Could not find data file /usr/share/pandoc-3.6/data/templates/old-latex-template.latex

So i tried to move the template in that folder:

sudo cp ~/.pandoc/templates/old_latex_template.latex /usr/share/pandoc-3.6/data/templates/

(i tried also that folder ~/.pandoc/templates that apparently was working for some people but same result)

Anway even wit the file in the folder it is looking for, i still get the same error.

[jgm]

This is probably not due to texlive differences; it's probably due to pandoc template changes.

Here is a relevant old commit: b3473df

That commit moved \setstretch after front matter, where it shouldn't affect the table of contents, and as far as I can see that's still where it goes.

Why don't you use pandoc to create a standalone tex file (-s -o out.tex but keep the other options the same). Then see where \setstretch appears in this file, in relation to \tableofcontents.

[dreamos82]

Keeping the same options, i get a .tex file with pdf content, maybe do i need to change the -t parameter too ?

[dreamos82]

Ok, i created the .tex file, but there is no \setstretch neither in the debian one, nor in the suse one

[badumont]

If ~/.local/share/pandoc exists on your machine, Pandoc will search for files there and ignore ~/.pandoc You can generate the LaTeX file with -t latex.

[dreamos82]

Ok my bad :D I was using the wrong template name: old-latex-template instead of old_latext_template. Now it find it, but i get a lot of errors using the template coming from debian!

[badumont]

Ok my bad :D I was using the wrong template name: `old-latex-template` instead of `old_latext_template`. Now it find it, but i get a lot of errors using the template coming from debian!

You could get the default template from OpenSuse and compare it with that of Debian. Determine which changes have affected the formatting in a noticeable way (e.g. the replacement of polyglossia with babel has not) and create a custom template based on that of OpenSuse that reverts these changes.

[dreamos82]

I got both templates, and there are not only few differences.
The debian template is 591 lines, while the suse one is only 121.

And they look totally different, i think is pretty hard to figure out if there are differences related to the tableofcontents (and i think is not the only place where there are differences, since the final document on suses is 30 pages more than the one in debian, with same identical content).