Re: ghostscript fonts (was: new smaller installers to test)

2010-02-20 Thread Patrick McCarty
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > >> I am a little worried that it might depend on how the font is laid out >> internally.  Perhaps we should let this slip for now, but look into >> this as the first suspect when

ghostscript fonts (was: new smaller installers to test)

2010-02-19 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Patrick McCarty wrote: >>> Could other people try compiling a file with Chinese or Japanese >>> symbols using the official 2.13.13 ?  I'd like to know whether it's >>> just the regtest-building that's brok

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-19 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Patrick McCarty wrote: >> Could other people try compiling a file with Chinese or Japanese >> symbols using the official 2.13.13 ?  I'd like to know whether it's >> just the regtest-building that's broken, or the entire installer. > > The regtest "utf-8.ly" is comp

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-19 Thread Patrick McCarty
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > > Could other people try compiling a file with Chinese or Japanese > symbols using the official 2.13.13 ?  I'd like to know whether it's > just the regtest-building that's broken, or the entire installer. The regtest "utf-8.ly" is compili

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-19 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Graham Percival wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:25:33PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >>> The largest ones are the Encoding files, which are related to >>> international fonts, so if this is the cause of the problem (I think >>> it is). >> >> ok, I'll test th

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-18 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Graham Percival wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:25:33PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> The largest ones are the Encoding files, which are related to >> international fonts, so if this is the cause of the problem (I think >> it is). > > ok, I'll test that whe

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-18 Thread Graham Percival
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:25:33PM -0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: > > woah, this is weird.  The 2.13.12 regtest comparison shows them just fine: > > The regtest comparison uses the bounding boxes inside lilypond. > Errors in ghostscript d

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-18 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > woah, this is weird.  The 2.13.12 regtest comparison shows them just fine: > http://lilypond.org/test/v2.13.12-1/compare-v2.13.11-1/index.html > (you can see the hiragana in utf-8.ly) > > the 2.13.13 regest doesn't show them changing: > htt

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-18 Thread Graham Percival
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: >> I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from >> share/ghostscript/Resources.  The resulting files are (on average) 5 >> megs smaller.  linux-x86 works here for me. > > It looks

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-17 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from > share/ghostscript/Resources.  The resulting files are (on average) 5 > megs smaller.  linux-x86 works here for me. It looks as if this directory contains various character encoding related stu

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-13 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:52:01PM -0800, Patrick McCarty wrote: > > *** Warning: GenericResourceDir doesn't point to a valid resource directory. >the -sGenericResourceDir=... option can be used to set this. > > WARNING: /Unicode /Decoding r

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Patrick McCarty
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Graham Percival wrote: > I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from > share/ghostscript/Resources.  The resulting files are (on average) 5 > megs smaller.  linux-x86 works here for me. > > Could we get a few tests for various OSes? >    http://lilypond.org/~grah

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Trevor Daniels
Graham Percival wrote Friday, February 12, 2010 6:57 PM I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from share/ghostscript/Resources. The resulting files are (on average) 5 megs smaller. linux-x86 works here for me. Could we get a few tests for various OSes? On Vista: Yes - the .exe is 20.5

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Kieren MacMillan
Hi Graham, > Could we get a few tests for various OSes? >http://lilypond.org/~graham/ Mac OS X 10.6 is aok. It also seemed that "first compile" was almost instantaneous, as compared with earlier upgrades -- is this a change, or am I imagining things? Cheers, Kieren. ___

Re: new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Graham Percival
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Graham, > >> Could we get a few tests for various OSes? >>    http://lilypond.org/~graham/ > > Mac OS X 10.6 is aok. > It also seemed that "first compile" was almost instantaneous, as compared > with earlier upgrades -- is this a chang

new smaller installers to test

2010-02-12 Thread Graham Percival
I've tweaked the list of dirs to remove from share/ghostscript/Resources. The resulting files are (on average) 5 megs smaller. linux-x86 works here for me. Could we get a few tests for various OSes? http://lilypond.org/~graham/ (mingw is "mingw-new.exe", to avoid a clash with the nsis 2.4.6