[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

From: Masamichi Hosoda
Subject: Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 21:01:08 +0900 (JST)

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Knut Petersen" <address@hidden>
>> Yes. notation.pdf looks as if extractpdfmark/gs was not used. But the
>> part of the build log Phil published clearly proves that
>> extractpdfmark and ghostscript were used.
>> @Phil: If you have a look at the notation.pdf in the build tree: is
>> that file ok or is the same broken version as published on
>> lilypond.org?
> Please see the attached outcome from piping find to ls -l.  As you see
> the English notations vary in size, and the small ones lack the
> embedded fonts.

If I understand correctly,
at the end of `make doc`,
is copied to
So the three files should all be the same file.
But, they are different files.

Would you show us the GUB's whole lilypond-doc log file?
If you preserve the 2.19.81 (Jan. 2018) lilypond-doc log file,
I'd like to compare the 2.19.82 log file (broken PDFs)
and the 2.19.81 log file (correct PDFs).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]