Han-Wen, you wrote 17 March 2008 15:18 > > 2008/3/13, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > OK - here are the results: > > > > 2.11.34-1 > > Compiles in 15 secs > > Uses .fontconfig directory > > > > 2.11.35-1 > > Fails with libguile2-17.dll not found > > Copied this in, then > > Fails with error about ice-9/boot-9.scm > not in load > > path > > > > 2.11.35-2 > > Compiles in 15 secs, but > > Lots of error messages like > > Pango CRITICAL > > FT_Get_Glyph_Name() error invalid argument > > Glyph has no name > > Skipping Glyph U+FFFFFFFF ... > Century-Schl-Roma.otf > > Uses .fontconfig directory > > > > 2.11.36-1, 37-1, 41-1, 42-1 > > All compile slowly - 65 secs > > All use .lilypond-fonts directory > > > Dang, this happened after a big refactoring of > our build system. > Is there anything interesting (eg. by way of diff > -r) of /program > files/lilypond/usr/etc/ directory between .34 and .36 ? >
Not really. A couple of minor changes in fonts/fonts.conf but nothing that seems significant. However, I noticed that usr/bin/libfontconfig-1.dll changed between 34-1 and 35-1, and again between 35-2 and 36.1, looking at the module size. Moving usr/bin/libfontconfig-1.dll from 34-1 into 42-1 seems to have no adverse effects on a couple of simple tests and fixes the long delay. Maybe this is a work-around for the problem? But maybe this introduces other errors. What should I use as a definitive test? An alternative is to build the cache, then delete or rename etc/fonts/font.config. This causes font-building to abort early with an error message, which also bypasses the timing problem. This also seems to have no adverse effect on a couple of simple tests, but I don't use any unusual fonts. Trevor D > Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Trevor D _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
