Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable?
My apologies - I read this as referring to the 'documentation' meaning the HTML files, viewable with Frescobaldi or a browser. I failed to see that this was referring to PDF, and even read the comment that 'I downloaded the PDF' as meaning that was the solution! How wrong can I be? I can confirm that the 2.19.82 PDF file does not have Emmentaler embedded in it, just as others say, and will not render properly, since font substituion takes place and it is obviously wrong. Andrew On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 09:49, Patrick Karl wrote: > I have lately been trying to move from v2.19.81 to 2.19.82. The biggest > problem I see at this early stage is that > v2.19.82 documentation is apparently dependent upon a new font, > Emmentaler-20. Or at least I > get an error message such as: > > Cannot find or create the font Emmentaler-20. Some characters may not > display or print correctly. > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable?
On 2018-11-24 3:23 pm, Michael Gerdau wrote: Are you sure you are looking at the 2.19.82 version? I would be *very* surprised to find a PDF viewer that can magically summon fonts from the aether, because they are very much not there. I‘m quite certain that I’ve been looking at 2.19.82... http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf ...however your link does point to a pdf that’s broken for me as well. Rechecking my url which I navigated to via the website gives http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.de.pdf which of course is because German is the preferred language as reported by my browser. My bad, I forgot that some of the localized versions of the docs were unaffected by this issue. Does that help to track down the problem? For the record, there is nothing to "track down". This issue was already investigated many months back, as David mentioned. Unfortunately, the resolution did not involve regenerating the docs properly, so the English version (and I believe a few other locales) are going to remain broken until the next build of LilyPond is released. My contribution to this thread was simply a workaround that folks could use to fix the broken PDFs locally for the time-being. -- Aaron Hill ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable?
On 24/11/18 23:23, Michael Gerdau wrote: > >> Are you sure you are looking at the 2.19.82 version? I would be >> *very* surprised to find a PDF viewer that can magically summon fonts >> from the aether, because they are very much not there. > > I‘m quite certain that I’ve been looking at 2.19.82... > >> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf > > ...however your link does point to a pdf that’s broken for me as well. > > Rechecking my url which I navigated to via the website gives > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.de.pdf > which of course is because German is the preferred language as reported > by my browser. > > Does that help to track down the problem? > > Kind regards, > Michael > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > The English language documentation is 4.4 MiB, the German is 6.6 Mib. Now I know languages differ in their density, but 50% larger seems to me like a smoking gun. -- J Martin Rushton MBCS signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable?
> Are you sure you are looking at the 2.19.82 version? I would be *very* > surprised to find a PDF viewer that can magically summon fonts from the > aether, because they are very much not there. I‘m quite certain that I’ve been looking at 2.19.82... > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf ...however your link does point to a pdf that’s broken for me as well. Rechecking my url which I navigated to via the website gives http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.de.pdf which of course is because German is the preferred language as reported by my browser. Does that help to track down the problem? Kind regards, Michael___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable?
On 24/11/18 22:17, Aaron Hill wrote: > On 2018-11-24 7:03 am, Michael Gerdau wrote: I am curious then as to why it all works fine for me and presumably others? Sounds like a Mac font problem to me, given my other current experience with Alegreya, as initially raised by Kieren. Or has 2.19.82 been rebuilt since I downloaded it some time ago? I may be wrong! >>> >>> Just checked, and the PDFs on the site have not been changed and are >>> still broken. >> >> Just looked at the 2.19.82 notation.pdf with my iPhone (read: clearly >> no lilypond fonts installed locally) and by briefly browsing through >> it I could not detect any broken images. >> >> So I’m not convinced your analysis is completely correct. > > Are you sure you are looking at the 2.19.82 version? I would be *very* > surprised to find a PDF viewer that can magically summon fonts from the > aether, because they are very much not there. > > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf > > Output from pdffonts: > >> pdffonts notation.pdf | grep -iv "builtin" | head -n 10 > > name type encoding > emb sub uni object ID > - > --- --- --- - > Emmentaler-20 Type 1 Custom > no no yes 642 0 > TeXGyreSchola-Italic Type 1 WinAnsi > no no no 645 0 > Emmentaler-Brace Type 1 Custom > no no no 648 0 > Emmentaler-20 Type 1 Custom > no no yes 656 0 > TeXGyreSchola-Regular Type 1 WinAnsi > no no no 658 0 > Emmentaler-Brace Type 1 Custom > no no no 661 0 > Emmentaler-20 Type 1 Custom > no no no 668 0 > Emmentaler-20 Type 1 Custom > no no no 678 0 > > -- Aaron Hill > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Following the above link using Firefox 60.3.0esr running under CentOS 7.5.1804 (kernel 3.10.0-862.14.4.el7.x86_64) fails with "weird" symbols. Downloading the file (wget) and viewing through Document viewer (aka Evince) 3.22.1 also fails in the same way. -- J Martin Rushton MBCS signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable?
On 2018-11-24 7:03 am, Michael Gerdau wrote: I am curious then as to why it all works fine for me and presumably others? Sounds like a Mac font problem to me, given my other current experience with Alegreya, as initially raised by Kieren. Or has 2.19.82 been rebuilt since I downloaded it some time ago? I may be wrong! Just checked, and the PDFs on the site have not been changed and are still broken. Just looked at the 2.19.82 notation.pdf with my iPhone (read: clearly no lilypond fonts installed locally) and by briefly browsing through it I could not detect any broken images. So I’m not convinced your analysis is completely correct. Are you sure you are looking at the 2.19.82 version? I would be *very* surprised to find a PDF viewer that can magically summon fonts from the aether, because they are very much not there. http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf Output from pdffonts: pdffonts notation.pdf | grep -iv "builtin" | head -n 10 name type encoding emb sub uni object ID - --- --- --- - Emmentaler-20Type 1Custom no no yes642 0 TeXGyreSchola-Italic Type 1WinAnsi no no no 645 0 Emmentaler-Brace Type 1Custom no no no 648 0 Emmentaler-20Type 1Custom no no yes656 0 TeXGyreSchola-RegularType 1WinAnsi no no no 658 0 Emmentaler-Brace Type 1Custom no no no 661 0 Emmentaler-20Type 1Custom no no no 668 0 Emmentaler-20Type 1Custom no no no 678 0 -- Aaron Hill ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable?
On 2018-11-24 2:17 pm, Aaron Hill wrote: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf Also... md5sum notation.pdf c578b9e1b04a7655a647f015bd77b7b0 notation.pdf curl -L http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf | md5sum % Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed 100 4306k 100 4306k0 0 1564k 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 1564k c578b9e1b04a7655a647f015bd77b7b0 - -- Aaron Hill ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Spacing issue after Mark and TextScript
'
Am Sa., 24. Nov. 2018 um 22:28 Uhr schrieb Thomas Morley
:
>
> Am Fr., 23. Nov. 2018 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb David Sumbler :
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Sumbler
> > Reply
> > -To: da...@aeolia.co.uk
> > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> > Subject: Spacing issue after Mark and TextScript
> > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:24:29 +
> >
> > %%%
> > \version "2.19.81"
> >
> > #(set-global-staff-size 12)
> >
> > indent = #0
> >
> > { \textLengthOn
> > \time 5/4
> > r2 r4.
> > \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #-1
> > \override Score.RehearsalMark.font-size = #5
> > \mark \markup {"After the thirty-third encore, the Emperor arose."}
> > \hide TextScript
> > r8\fermata_"m"
> > r4 |
> > %%% \noBreak
> > R4*5 | R4*5 | R4*5 |
> > }
> > %%%
> >
> > When the above is compiled, the spacing for notes/rests after the Mark
> > and TextScript is increased. This becomes even more obvious if
> > \noBreak is uncommented: the final crotchet rest of the first bar and
> > the whole bar rest of the second now take up so much horizontal space
> > that the line runs outside of the right-hand margin, as is shown in the
> > attached image. Meanwhile the rests at the start of the first bar are
> > squashed together to make room for the unnecessary empty spaces later
> > in the line. Things are restored to normal after a line break.
> >
> > If I remove either the RehearsalMark or the TextScript, the problem
> > disappears. The purpose of the textscript is to prevent the crotchet
> > rest appearing before the "Mark" is finished.
> >
> > I have used the same kind of structure in numerous other places in this
> > piece without problems, and despite nearly a day of experimentation I
> > can't see why this case behaves differently. (There are reasons for
> > presenting these texts as Marks rather than Text attached to a rest,
> > but they are not relevant to the problem.)
> >
> > Any suggestions? Is there perhaps a way of resetting the spacing
> > parameters to something sensible?
> >
> > David
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pedro Pessoa
> > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: Spacing issue after Mark and TextScript
> > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:26:42 -0700 (MST)
> >
> > Hey David. Not sure if I got how you want it to be, but - with the
> > \nobreak
> > uncommented) - if you add tree more m's to the TextScript, it produces
> > something which looks right. Don't know why.
> >
> > Pessoa
> >
> > mailing_Spacing_issue_after_Mark_and_TextScript.png
> > <
> > http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t5699/mailing_Spacing_issue_after_Mark_and_TextScript.png>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > True - it looks as if the spacing text (the ""-s) needs to be as
> > far as possible exactly the same length as the TextScript.
> >
> > But add even one more "m" and the right-hand end of the staff is again
> > noticeably beyond the right margin.
> >
> > And even with the "correct" number of "m"s, so that the end of the line
> > appears in (roughly?) the right place, the rests at the beginning of
> > the line are ridiculously compressed together. The space give to the
> > crotchet rest at the end of the bar is far greater than that allowed
> > for the dotted crotchet earlier in the same bar.
> >
> > Does anyone have any idea what is going on here?
> >
> > David
>
> I noticed with version 2.12.3 the output is as desired.
>
> Then I identified the first commit which changes the behaviour. First
> bad commit is:
>
> commit 53db923e715126eb9463220526b4838fbfd3dad4
> Author: Andrew Hawryluk
> Date: Sat Jan 15 13:42:03 2011 -0700
>
> Change keep-inside-line defaults to true.
>
> As discussed in Issue #1470, the default should be changed so that
> good layout with a slight performance hit is the default.
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1470/
> https://codereview.appspot.com/4243041/
> Which is LilyPond-version 2.13.52
>
>
> Tbh, I never noticed bad behaviour caused by this patch before.
> I suspect something rotten is present elsewhere, though I've no clue
> what it might be or where to look...
>
>
> Nevertheless, you could revert the settings done by this patch globally with:
>
> \layout {
> \context {
> \Score
> \override NonMusicalPaperColumn.keep-inside-line = #'()
> \override PaperColumn.keep-inside-line = #'()
> }
> }
>
> This may have some unwanted effects, though.
> Less invasive would be:
>
c/p error :(
check without changing 'set-global-staff-size'
> #(set-global-staff-size 12)
>
> indent = #0
>
> { \textLengthOn
> \time 5/4
> r2 r4.
>
> \overrideProperty Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn.keep-inside-line #'()
> \overrideProperty Score.PaperColumn.keep-inside-line #'()
> \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #-1
> \override Score.RehearsalMark.font-size = #4
> \mark \markup {"After the thirty-third encore, the Emperor arose."}
> \hide
Re: Spacing issue after Mark and TextScript
Am Fr., 23. Nov. 2018 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb David Sumbler :
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Sumbler
> Reply
> -To: da...@aeolia.co.uk
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Spacing issue after Mark and TextScript
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:24:29 +
>
> %%%
> \version "2.19.81"
>
> #(set-global-staff-size 12)
>
> indent = #0
>
> { \textLengthOn
> \time 5/4
> r2 r4.
> \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #-1
> \override Score.RehearsalMark.font-size = #5
> \mark \markup {"After the thirty-third encore, the Emperor arose."}
> \hide TextScript
> r8\fermata_"m"
> r4 |
> %%% \noBreak
> R4*5 | R4*5 | R4*5 |
> }
> %%%
>
> When the above is compiled, the spacing for notes/rests after the Mark
> and TextScript is increased. This becomes even more obvious if
> \noBreak is uncommented: the final crotchet rest of the first bar and
> the whole bar rest of the second now take up so much horizontal space
> that the line runs outside of the right-hand margin, as is shown in the
> attached image. Meanwhile the rests at the start of the first bar are
> squashed together to make room for the unnecessary empty spaces later
> in the line. Things are restored to normal after a line break.
>
> If I remove either the RehearsalMark or the TextScript, the problem
> disappears. The purpose of the textscript is to prevent the crotchet
> rest appearing before the "Mark" is finished.
>
> I have used the same kind of structure in numerous other places in this
> piece without problems, and despite nearly a day of experimentation I
> can't see why this case behaves differently. (There are reasons for
> presenting these texts as Marks rather than Text attached to a rest,
> but they are not relevant to the problem.)
>
> Any suggestions? Is there perhaps a way of resetting the spacing
> parameters to something sensible?
>
> David
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Pessoa
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Spacing issue after Mark and TextScript
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:26:42 -0700 (MST)
>
> Hey David. Not sure if I got how you want it to be, but - with the
> \nobreak
> uncommented) - if you add tree more m's to the TextScript, it produces
> something which looks right. Don't know why.
>
> Pessoa
>
> mailing_Spacing_issue_after_Mark_and_TextScript.png
> <
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t5699/mailing_Spacing_issue_after_Mark_and_TextScript.png>
>
> --
>
>
> True - it looks as if the spacing text (the ""-s) needs to be as
> far as possible exactly the same length as the TextScript.
>
> But add even one more "m" and the right-hand end of the staff is again
> noticeably beyond the right margin.
>
> And even with the "correct" number of "m"s, so that the end of the line
> appears in (roughly?) the right place, the rests at the beginning of
> the line are ridiculously compressed together. The space give to the
> crotchet rest at the end of the bar is far greater than that allowed
> for the dotted crotchet earlier in the same bar.
>
> Does anyone have any idea what is going on here?
>
> David
I noticed with version 2.12.3 the output is as desired.
Then I identified the first commit which changes the behaviour. First
bad commit is:
commit 53db923e715126eb9463220526b4838fbfd3dad4
Author: Andrew Hawryluk
Date: Sat Jan 15 13:42:03 2011 -0700
Change keep-inside-line defaults to true.
As discussed in Issue #1470, the default should be changed so that
good layout with a slight performance hit is the default.
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1470/
https://codereview.appspot.com/4243041/
Which is LilyPond-version 2.13.52
Tbh, I never noticed bad behaviour caused by this patch before.
I suspect something rotten is present elsewhere, though I've no clue
what it might be or where to look...
Nevertheless, you could revert the settings done by this patch globally with:
\layout {
\context {
\Score
\override NonMusicalPaperColumn.keep-inside-line = #'()
\override PaperColumn.keep-inside-line = #'()
}
}
This may have some unwanted effects, though.
Less invasive would be:
#(set-global-staff-size 12)
indent = #0
{ \textLengthOn
\time 5/4
r2 r4.
\overrideProperty Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn.keep-inside-line #'()
\overrideProperty Score.PaperColumn.keep-inside-line #'()
\override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #-1
\override Score.RehearsalMark.font-size = #4
\mark \markup {"After the thirty-third encore, the Emperor arose."}
\hide TextScript
r8\fermata_"m"
r4 |
\noBreak
R4*5 | R4*5 | R4*5 |
}
HTH,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable?
>> I am curious then as to why it all works fine for me and presumably others? >> Sounds like a Mac font problem to me, given my other current experience >> with Alegreya, as initially raised by Kieren. >> Or has 2.19.82 been rebuilt since I downloaded it some time ago? >> I may be wrong! > > Just checked, and the PDFs on the site have not been changed and are still > broken. Just looked at the 2.19.82 notation.pdf with my iPhone (read: clearly no lilypond fonts installed locally) and by briefly browsing through it I could not detect any broken images. So I’m not convinced your analysis is completely correct. Kind regards, Michael ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
