"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > news:87d0wc5lzt....@fencepost.gnu.org... Knut Petersen > <knut_peter...@t-online.de> writes: >> >>>> >>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Zipped versions of both log files are attached. Hope this helps. >>> >>> To me both logs prove that building of e.g. the english notation.pdf >>> succeeded and that the survival of the original pdf generated by xetex >>> is impossible. Unfortunately reality proves something different. >> >> Can it be verified whether or not the logs stem from a run actually >> producing the respective valid and/or invalid PDF files or not? > > > They are the only make doc logs on my GUB machine from the dates when > I built 19.81 and 19.82, so they must be.
Ah ok, I wasn't aware that they were actual historic records. Seems like a puzzler. I'll take a look as well and see whether I have better luck inventing some theory of what may have transpired here. Do we have an idea whether this is reproducible? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
