"James Lowe" <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:50:51 +0200, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Aaron Hill <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > With the release of 2.19.82, I pulled down the latest docs in PDF form >> > for reference. However, it appears nearly all of them have notation >> > with missing or incorrect fonts. The HTML versions seem fine and show >> > the notation snippets correctly. >> >> Ugh. That's what we have prereleases for. There have been a number of >> PDF generation related changes/fixes in master. Would it be possible to >> get a comparison of a GUB build from master? Basically, generating the >> notation manual with the full GUB process but without actually tagging >> or otherwise going through with the 2.21.0 release? >> >> Because that could significantly narrow down the problem. > > I don't do GUB but running a make doc on current master and scanning > the NR, I am not seeing anything obviously wrong. > > If Aaron has specific examples (which doc, which page) then maybe I > can at least confirm this on master if that is going to help or not?
I'll check out stable/2.20 regarding "make doc" but I suspect that this problem will occur with GUB rather than native builds. But yes: specific examples would be good. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
