Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> news:address@hidden Knut Petersen <address@hidden> 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