On 6 Dec 2016, at 15:40, Masamichi Hosoda <truer...@trueroad.jp> wrote: > >>> If master is ok, but not the released version, it's more likely a >>> GUB-problem as David suspected. >>> Maybe Masimichi-San can could say more, cc-ed. >> >> Between LilyPond 2.19.50 and 2.19.51, >> Ghostscript bundled with the binary distributed on lilypond.org >> has been updated. >> >> 2.19.50 has Ghostscript 9.15. >> 2.19.51 has Ghostscript 9.20. >> (Also 2.19.52 has Ghostscript 9.20.) >> >> I've tried some versions. >> >> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.15: >> no problem. >> >> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.16: >> no problem. >> >> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.18: >> no problem. >> >> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.19: >> reproduced. >> >> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.20: >> reproduced. >> >> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.18: >> no problem. >> >> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.19: >> reproduced. >> >> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.20: >> reproduced. > > I've reported it to Ghostscript Bugzilla. > http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697423
Bug has been reported as solved and a new version of ghostscript has recently been released that incorparates the fix. I’m happy to volunteer testing a new (Mac OS X) binary with Ghostscript 9.21 packaged, but I’ve failed all attempts to get a local running GUB build to get a cross-platform build delivering me a Mac binary to try out. regards, Hans Aikema _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
