Re: LilyPond 2.7.38 released, final release candidate

[Laura Conrad]

>>>>> "WL" == Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

    >> The pdf file size is still almost 8 times the size of the postscript
    >> file size.  (which I reported a couple of weeks ago).  I don't think
    >> anyone who distributes her work via pdf is going to consider this an
    >> upgrade from 2.6, even though there are some very nice new features.

    WL> Reason is a bug in gs.  As mentioned in INSTALL.texi, the small patch
    WL> below should be applied to ghostscript 8.53, and everything is just
    WL> fine.

I do see some patches mentioned in install.texi, but they are
mentioned as necessary for building the website, not as necessary for
using lilypond.  

If there are really plans for releasing a "stable" version which has
this problem, I think this workaround needs to be better documented.

In any case, I think we should think hard before releasing a "stable"
version where the output is unusable by a large fraction of the world.
My user base suggests the pdf output of lily 2.7.38 is unusable by
most windows and mac users.  I have two friends who routinely download
my working files; the mac user can use them personally (on his newer
machines), but won't forward them on to friends who use dialup access;
the windows user finds the 2.7 files hang her system so she can't use
them at all.  In addition, since having the problem pointed out to me,
I've been working with "lilypond --ps", not plain lilypond, because
the time required to produce the giant pdf file seriously slows down
my work cycle.

Do we know what desirable feature we're getting because we trigger
this bug in gs?  (2.6 does not trigger it, on my system.)  If it's
an only  slightly desirable feature, could we postpone it for a future
release?  Or if we know an ETA for a fix of this problem, could we
postpone the release until the ghostscript fix is released?

Or here's another possible workaround: As far as I can see, dvips on
tex-produced dvi files does not have this problem.  Could the TeX
backend be fixed before the release?  I currently can't use it at all
even on the simplest of lilypond files; my impression is that this is
a known problem but I can report it if anyone's interested.  (I think
it should be either fixed or removed, in any case.)

Does anyone have any good advice for Debian users who do decide to
patch ghostscript?  (e.g. what source package to apply the patch to,
if that's the way to go; how to pin gs to the patched package...)

-- 
Laura (mailto:address@hidden , http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097  fax: (501) 641-5011
233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139