> Note: NotoSansJP-Regular and NotoSansCJKjp-Regular are similar
> but different fonts.
I've noticed that utf-8.ly confused the font names.
It requires the font `Noto Serif JP`.
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/blob/d6b62def753b268fc5adfbe8443aa477d38395ef/input/regression/utf-8.ly#L30
And
>> ```
>> Layout output to `./1a/lily-d0aeef0b.eps'...
>> fatal error: Font NotoSansCJKjp-Regular cannot be loaded via Ghostscript
>> because it is an OpenType/CFF Collection (OTC) font.
>> ```
> /usr/share/fonts/opentype/noto/NotoSansCJK-Regular.ttc: Noto Sans CJK
> JP:style=Regular
This file
> On 2 Jan 2021, at 19:45, Dan Eble wrote:
>
> Is there an ancient music expert lurking who is willing to clarify a couple
> of things about divisiones for me?
(I don't claim to be an expert but then, fools rush in...)
>
> The LilyPond Notation Reference says, "A divisio . . . is a staff co
> On Jan 2, 2021, at 14:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> Does this warning indicate something amiss in my build environment?
>>
>> ```
>> Layout output to `./1a/lily-d0aeef0b.eps'...
>> fatal error: Font NotoSansCJKjp-Regular cannot be loaded via Ghostscript
>> because it is an OpenType/CFF Co
Is there an ancient music expert lurking who is willing to clarify a couple of
things about divisiones for me?
The LilyPond Notation Reference says, "A divisio . . . is a staff context
symbol that is used to indicate the phrase and section structure of Gregorian
music." I see that these are im
> Does this warning indicate something amiss in my build environment?
>
> ```
> Layout output to `./1a/lily-d0aeef0b.eps'...
> fatal error: Font NotoSansCJKjp-Regular cannot be loaded via Ghostscript
> because it is an OpenType/CFF Collection (OTC) font.
> ```
What font name does `fc-list` show
Does this warning indicate something amiss in my build environment?
```
Layout output to `./1a/lily-d0aeef0b.eps'...
fatal error: Font NotoSansCJKjp-Regular cannot be loaded via Ghostscript
because it is an OpenType/CFF Collection (OTC) font.
```
That was from input/regression/utf-8.ly during a
Am Sa., 2. Jan. 2021 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb James :
>
>
> On 02/01/2021 12:20, Thomas Morley wrote:
> > A full `make doc` takes hours for me, even if invoked with `make doc
> > -j5 CPU_COUNT=5`
> > Thus I hardly do so, but use the CG-documented methods:
>
> Hours?
>
> Really?
>
> Perhaps 'an hour' if
On 02/01/2021 15:38, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
I’m using an 11-year old iMac, running LilyDev in a Linux VM. =)
Oh .. OK.
Yeah. Don't make doc.
%^)
James
Hi all,
>> Perhaps 'an hour' if you were using some very, very old CPU - but even using
>> a single CPU on an 'old' i5 Intel system a full make doc for me took less
>> than 50 mins. That last time it took longer than an hour was when I had an
>> old (8+ years ago) iMac running make doc in a lin
Hello
On 02/01/2021 14:07, Trevor wrote:
James wrote 02/01/2021 13:41:06
On 02/01/2021 12:20, Thomas Morley wrote:
A full `make doc` takes hours for me, even if invoked with `make doc
-j5 CPU_COUNT=5`
Thus I hardly do so, but use the CG-documented methods:
Hours?
Really?
Perhaps 'an hour' i
James wrote 02/01/2021 13:41:06
On 02/01/2021 12:20, Thomas Morley wrote:
A full `make doc` takes hours for me, even if invoked with `make doc
-j5 CPU_COUNT=5`
Thus I hardly do so, but use the CG-documented methods:
Hours?
Really?
Perhaps 'an hour' if you were using some very, very old CP
On 02/01/2021 12:20, Thomas Morley wrote:
A full `make doc` takes hours for me, even if invoked with `make doc
-j5 CPU_COUNT=5`
Thus I hardly do so, but use the CG-documented methods:
Hours?
Really?
Perhaps 'an hour' if you were using some very, very old CPU - but even
using a single CPU o
Am Sa., 2. Jan. 2021 um 13:20 Uhr schrieb Thomas Morley
:
>
> Hi Kieren,
>
> Am Sa., 2. Jan. 2021 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb Kieren MacMillan
> :
> >
> > Hi Michael (et al.),
> >
> > > please use http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/contributor/lilydev
> > > instead. I adjusted some parts of this
Hi Kieren,
Am Sa., 2. Jan. 2021 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb Kieren MacMillan
:
>
> Hi Michael (et al.),
>
> > please use http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/contributor/lilydev
> > instead. I adjusted some parts of this section last year. However, I
> > would be happy to hear if something remains
It shouldn't take multiple hours unless your system is very slow. A few 10s of
minutes is a more reasonable expectation.
On 01/01/2021 23:00, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Michael (et al.),
please use http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/contributor/lilydev
instead. I adjusted some part
16 matches
Mail list logo
