Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

[David Kastrup]

"James Lowe" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:50:51 +0200, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Aaron Hill <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > With the release of 2.19.82, I pulled down the latest docs in PDF form
>> > for reference.  However, it appears nearly all of them have notation
>> > with missing or incorrect fonts.  The HTML versions seem fine and show
>> > the notation snippets correctly.
>> 
>> Ugh.  That's what we have prereleases for.  There have been a number of
>> PDF generation related changes/fixes in master.  Would it be possible to
>> get a comparison of a GUB build from master?  Basically, generating the
>> notation manual with the full GUB process but without actually tagging
>> or otherwise going through with the 2.21.0 release?
>> 
>> Because that could significantly narrow down the problem.
>
> I don't do GUB but running a make doc on current master and scanning
> the NR, I am not seeing anything obviously wrong.
>
> If Aaron has specific examples (which doc, which page) then maybe I
> can at least confirm this on master if that is going to help or not?

I'll check out stable/2.20 regarding "make doc" but I suspect that this
problem will occur with GUB rather than native builds.

But yes: specific examples would be good.

-- 
David Kastrup