[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: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:37:36 +0100

"David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

news:address@hidden Knut Petersen <address@hidden> writes:

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).

Zipped versions of both log files are attached. Hope this helps.

To me both logs prove that building of e.g. the english notation.pdf
succeeded and that the survival of the original pdf generated by xetex
is impossible. Unfortunately reality proves something different.

Can it be verified whether or not the logs stem from a run actually
producing the respective valid and/or invalid PDF files or not?

They are the only make doc logs on my GUB machine from the dates when
I built 19.81 and 19.82, so they must be.

Ah ok, I wasn't aware that they were actual historic records.  Seems
like a puzzler.  I'll take a look as well and see whether I have better
luck inventing some theory of what may have transpired here.  Do we have
an idea whether this is reproducible?

David Kastrup

I've not re-run GUB since the uploaded version.

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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