Re: make doc still fails - problem with lilypond-book - was: Still cannot make doc

[Masamichi Hosoda]

>>> So do we need any warnings or notes to be added to here:
>>>
>>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage-big-page#advanced-command-line-options-for-lilypond
>>>
>>> and/or here:
>>>
>>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation-big-page#entire-document-fonts
>>>
>>> ?
>> In my humble opinion,
>> both options `-dgs-load-fonts' and `-dgs-load-lily-fonts'
>> should be deprecated.
>>
>> I think that should be noted as deprecated in the document.
>>
>>
> Sorry to appear pendantic but I am having a hard time parsing that -
> or perhaps you are using the wrong word?
> 
> When you say 'should' be deprecated do you mean these commands 'are'
> deprecated or that you 'would like them to be' deprecated because they
> *do* work (except in this case) or are they not expected to work at
> all properly.
> 
> I just am concerned there might be users that have a genuine use-case
> for this option and it still works for them even in the later
> versions?
> 
> Perhaps you can give some words (like you have done before) that might
> be suitable for the warning/note and I, if needed, can make them more
> succinct in the English doc?

Sorry.
My explanation was poor.

I'd like "-dgs-load-fonts" and "-dgs-load-lily-fonts" to be deprecated.

If I understand correctly,
the both options use a ghostscript language extension ".loadfont".
Ghostscript developers seem to want us
to not use the ghostscript language extension.
http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696823
http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696824

As they said, to "use the documented method for loading fonts",
the both options can not be used.

So I propose that the both options are not used.