At 00:41 22/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Or, even so, should we take other methods (e.g. using non-embedded PDFs)?
If we figure out a working alternative, we should take it. The current
set of Ghostscript bugs in 9.22 is still a bit in flux, so it's not
clear yet which alternative actually could work.
Is that a reasonable summary of the current state, Ken?
I'd say so, yes. I can't think of a reasonable alternative right at the
moment, which will yield the same or at least similar output file size.
Especially given the time scale of our ongoing release. The only other
approach I could think of didn't work. If someone has other ideas I'll be
happy to try them out or at least think them over.
As I said in my reply (sorry I saw Masamichi's mail first and replied to it
first), *if* the fonts were fully embedded which, from a first glance they
should be, then you wouldn't need this trickery. You could just use MuPDF
to remove the duplicated FontFile objects, because they'd really be identical.
I've no idea why they aren't fully embedded but I'd have to guess its
because they are CFF outlines, we don't see a lot of those. So it smells
like a bug. I will look at it, as soon as I get some time, but its not
likely to be a change we'll put into 9.22 given the state of the release
cycle. In fact, realistically, its unlikely I'll even get the time to look
at it before the release is complete.
So this is something that probably needs to be looked at after the release,
preferably at leisure. Time pressure sort of makes this a lot worse.
More worrying is the fact that when I run the EPS files here with the
current release candidate, I don't get one copy of Emmentaler-20 in the
output PDF files, I get three. For me that didn't make any difference in
the final output file, but it is a concern because I don't know why that
would have changed.
Ken
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
