[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”)
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”) |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:18:56 +0200 |
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:11 PM David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
> <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > Am Freitag, den 19.06.2020, 11:47 +0200 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> wrote:
> >> > Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2020, 11:21 -0600 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
> >> > > is it the difference between an output .ps file and an output .eps
> >> > > file?
> >> >
> >> > No, broken.ps file is only the driver for Ghostscript:
> >> > mark /OutputFile (broken.pdf) (pdfwrite) finddevice putdeviceprops
> >> > setdevice (broken.eps) run
> >> >
> >> > Both ways use the same broken.eps file:
> >> > %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it's empty except for that line.
> >>
> >> That doesn't look like an EPS file that LilyPond should be producing.
> >>
> >> Let me do some research today where that comes from.
> >
> > No, this is the only smallest possible EPS file that shows the problem.
> > I'm attaching the real file from LilyPond to this message, but the
> > important part is probably that it contains no graphical objects.
>
> That triggers some memory: this may not have anything to do with
> autorotation? That GhostScript decides on landscape orientation
> unexpectedly or so?
Good sleuthing. AutoRotatePages is a device parameter, so it gets
overwritten by the defaults in the broken version.
Let me try what happens if we add it to the driver script.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwenn@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), (continued)
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jean Abou Samra, 2020/06/17
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Valentin Villenave, 2020/06/17
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Werner LEMBERG, 2020/06/17
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/06/18
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Carl Sorensen, 2020/06/18
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/06/18
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), David Kastrup, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”),
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/06/19
- Re: xdvipdfmx fails with some regtests (“Invalid object”), Michael Käppler, 2020/06/20