Re: ghostscript fonts (was: new smaller installers to test)

2010-02-20 Thread Patrick McCarty
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com wrote: I am a little worried that it might depend on how the font is laid out internally.  Perhaps we should let this slip for now, but look

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-19 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:25:33PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: The largest ones are the Encoding files, which are related to international fonts, so if this is the cause of the problem (I think it is). ok,

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-19 Thread Patrick McCarty
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: Could other people try compiling a file with Chinese or Japanese symbols using the official 2.13.13 ?  I'd like to know whether it's just the regtest-building that's broken, or the entire installer. The regtest

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-19 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Patrick McCarty pnor...@gmail.com wrote: Could other people try compiling a file with Chinese or Japanese symbols using the official 2.13.13 ?  I'd like to know whether it's just the regtest-building that's broken, or the entire installer. The regtest utf-8.ly

ghostscript fonts (was: new smaller installers to test)

2010-02-19 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Patrick McCarty pnor...@gmail.com wrote: Could other people try compiling a file with Chinese or Japanese symbols using the official 2.13.13 ?  I'd like to know whether it's just the

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-18 Thread Graham Percival
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from share/ghostscript/Resources.  The resulting files are (on average) 5 megs smaller.  

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-18 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: woah, this is weird.  The 2.13.12 regtest comparison shows them just fine: http://lilypond.org/test/v2.13.12-1/compare-v2.13.11-1/index.html (you can see the hiragana in utf-8.ly) the 2.13.13 regest doesn't show

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-18 Thread Graham Percival
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:25:33PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: woah, this is weird.  The 2.13.12 regtest comparison shows them just fine: The regtest comparison uses the bounding boxes inside lilypond.

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-18 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:25:33PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: The largest ones are the Encoding files, which are related to international fonts, so if this is the cause of the problem (I think it is). ok,

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-17 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from share/ghostscript/Resources.  The resulting files are (on average) 5 megs smaller.  linux-x86 works here for me. It looks as if this directory contains various

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-13 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:52:01PM -0800, Patrick McCarty wrote: *** Warning: GenericResourceDir doesn't point to a valid resource directory. the -sGenericResourceDir=... option can be used to set this. WARNING: /Unicode /Decoding

new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Graham Percival
I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from share/ghostscript/Resources. The resulting files are (on average) 5 megs smaller. linux-x86 works here for me. Could we get a few tests for various OSes? http://lilypond.org/~graham/ (mingw is mingw-new.exe, to avoid a clash with the nsis 2.4.6

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Hi Graham, Could we get a few tests for various OSes?    http://lilypond.org/~graham/ Mac OS X 10.6 is aok. It also seemed that first compile was almost instantaneous, as compared with earlier upgrades

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Kieren MacMillan
Hi Graham, Could we get a few tests for various OSes? http://lilypond.org/~graham/ Mac OS X 10.6 is aok. It also seemed that first compile was almost instantaneous, as compared with earlier upgrades -- is this a change, or am I imagining things? Cheers, Kieren.

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Trevor Daniels
Graham Percival wrote Friday, February 12, 2010 6:57 PM I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from share/ghostscript/Resources. The resulting files are (on average) 5 megs smaller. linux-x86 works here for me. Could we get a few tests for various OSes? On Vista: Yes - the .exe is

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Patrick McCarty
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from share/ghostscript/Resources.  The resulting files are (on average) 5 megs smaller.  linux-x86 works here for me. Could we get a few tests for various OSes?