# Using graphicx with invoice results in strange PDF output

I try to create an invoice with a logo in the background. But I get a strange result when I use graphicx and invoice in the same document. Here is my minimal example:

\documentclass{scrlttr2}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman]{babel}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{invoice}

\begin{document}
% foobar
\end{document}


It builds fine with pdflatex, but the resulting PDF file has this on it's first page:

[2007/09/09] [2010/03/01] [2010/12/02] [2010/09/13] [2007/11/11] [2007/09/09] [2007/09/09] [2010/03/01] [2010/03/01] [2010/12/02] [2007/09/09] [2007/09/09][2010/03/01] [2010/01/28] [2007/09/29] [2007/10/02] [2007/11/11] [2009/07/12]

After this, a page break happens and the expected output begins. The footer is also on the first page (where the dates are) and the second page (the first with actual content) has no footer. Starting with the third page, everything seems fine.

Is this a bug in either invoice or graphicx?

Update: This only happens with pdflatex, the DVI output does not show the dates.

-
I cannot see this (with current TeXLive 2011) –  Herbert Jun 25 '12 at 11:59

This is a bug, and had nothing to do with graphicx per se. Inside the invoice package you find

\input{fp}


and inside fp.tex you find

\def\NeedsTeXFormat#1{}
\def\ProvidesPackage#1[#2]{}
\def\DeclareOption#1#2{}
\let\ProcessOptions\relax


Both of these are wrong: input should use the fp LaTeX package, and if fp.tex is going to provide definitions for LaTeX commands it should first check if they are already loaded. (The above miss out the optional trailing arguments, which is where the odd text then comes from.)

-
To be clear, this can be fixed in invoice by using \RequirePackage{fp} in place of \input{fp}. I guess it should be reported as a bug. –  Joseph Wright Jun 25 '12 at 12:53
yeah. someone's left a guest-book request for ctan about it. :-( i guess i have to do the search for contact details and all that jazz. –  wasteofspace Mar 11 '13 at 15:54
sigh. contact details in ctan database are out of date: the address we have bounces. anyone knows him, please pass on a link to this ticket... –  wasteofspace Mar 12 '13 at 11:58
I wrote to the address specified on corff.de. Seems to be the same person. –  Adrian Lang Jun 28 '13 at 18:30