>>> So do we need any warnings or notes to be added to here: >>> >>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage-big-page#advanced-command-line-options-for-lilypond >>> >>> and/or here: >>> >>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation-big-page#entire-document-fonts >>> >>> ? >> In my humble opinion, >> both options `-dgs-load-fonts' and `-dgs-load-lily-fonts' >> should be deprecated. >> >> I think that should be noted as deprecated in the document. >> >> > Sorry to appear pendantic but I am having a hard time parsing that - > or perhaps you are using the wrong word? > > When you say 'should' be deprecated do you mean these commands 'are' > deprecated or that you 'would like them to be' deprecated because they > *do* work (except in this case) or are they not expected to work at > all properly. > > I just am concerned there might be users that have a genuine use-case > for this option and it still works for them even in the later > versions? > > Perhaps you can give some words (like you have done before) that might > be suitable for the warning/note and I, if needed, can make them more > succinct in the English doc?
Sorry. My explanation was poor. I'd like "-dgs-load-fonts" and "-dgs-load-lily-fonts" to be deprecated. If I understand correctly, the both options use a ghostscript language extension ".loadfont". Ghostscript developers seem to want us to not use the ghostscript language extension. http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696823 http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696824 As they said, to "use the documented method for loading fonts", the both options can not be used. So I propose that the both options are not used. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
