[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Pango Update in new binaries

From: Joshua Nichols
Subject: Re: Pango Update in new binaries
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:20:16 -0400

Is there not a procedure for builds that use the same version number but
import newer (fixed) library? Or is the issue about packagers?

I am currently using a MacPorts build of 2.18.2, which gives the desired
output. I also downloaded the 2.19.18 version and am getting great results.
I'm just thinking about the benefit for others to finally have the proper
kerning in the more regularly downloaded versions.



On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Federico Bruni" <address@hidden>
> To: "Joshua Nichols" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "lilypond-devel" <address@hidden>; "Mailinglist
> lilypond-user" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Pango Update in new binaries
>  2015-04-07 19:47 GMT+02:00 Joshua Nichols <address@hidden>:
>>  Hello all,
>>> I apologize if this question has already been asked.
>>> Has the new version of pango been ported to the binaries on
>>> mac/windows/linux? I noticed here
>>> <> that there
>>> has
>>> since been bug issues with a previous version that LilyPond has been
>>> using,
>>> and now there's been fixes to those bugs. I noticed its in the latest dev
>>> release of LilyPond, but my question is: is it being retroactively
>>> implemented in the stable release?
>>>  Hi Josh
>> Nobody replied to you.
>> According to a recent discussion in this list, it seems that the new Pango
>> version in GUB makes lilypond compile much faster. This would be another
>> good reason to make a 2.18.3 release. Unless 2.20 is close... What
>> developers think about it? (I'm cc-ing lilypond-devel).
> I don't think an update to 2.18 just to pick up the updated Pango would be
> a good idea.  Updates to stable are there really to correct problems that
> slipped through into the previous version, not to provide upgrades.  If the
> performance improvement is important, I would suggest using 2.19.18.
> --
> Phil Holmes

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]