> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Knut Petersen" <knut_peter...@t-online.de> > >> Yes. notation.pdf looks as if extractpdfmark/gs was not used. But the >> part of the build log Phil published clearly proves that >> extractpdfmark and ghostscript were used. > >> @Phil: If you have a look at the notation.pdf in the build tree: is >> that file ok or is the same broken version as published on >> lilypond.org? > > > Please see the attached outcome from piping find to ls -l. As you see > the English notations vary in size, and the small ones lack the > embedded fonts.
If I understand correctly, at the end of `make doc`, Documentation/out-www/notation.pdf is copied to out-www/online-root/Documentation/notation.pdf and out-www/offline-root/Documentation/notation.pdf . So the three files should all be the same file. But, they are different files. Would you show us the GUB's whole lilypond-doc log file? If you preserve the 2.19.81 (Jan. 2018) lilypond-doc log file, I'd like to compare the 2.19.82 log file (broken PDFs) and the 2.19.81 log file (correct PDFs). _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
