John Mandereau <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Dominik, > Il giorno mar, 18/09/2012 alle 04.38 -0700, ornello ha scritto: >> timesig22-emmentaler16 >> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n133112/timesig22-emmentaler16.png> >> >> timesig22-emmentaler20 >> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n133112/timesig22-emmentaler20.png> >> >> timesig44-emmentaler16 >> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n133112/timesig44-emmentaler16.png> >> >> timesig44-emmentaler20 >> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n133112/timesig44-emmentaler20.png> > > This is kind of a known issue, encountered on different glyphs on older > LilyPond versions: > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1683 > > This has been fixed by requiring Fontforge 20110222 or newer in LilyPond > 2.17.2 (see http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1637 ), > so you probably want to upgrade Fontforge above the requirement of > LilyPond 2.16.0. > > David, could we bump Fontforge minimum version to 20110222 for the next > 2.16 release as well?
How would that have to be done? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
