[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: make doc still fails - problem with lilypond-book - was: Still canno

From: Masamichi Hosoda
Subject: Re: make doc still fails - problem with lilypond-book - was: Still cannot make doc
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 23:00:06 +0900 (JST)

>>> So do we need any warnings or notes to be added to here:
>>> and/or here:
>>> ?
>> In my humble opinion,
>> both options `-dgs-load-fonts' and `-dgs-load-lily-fonts'
>> should be deprecated.
>> I think that should be noted as deprecated in the document.
> Sorry to appear pendantic but I am having a hard time parsing that -
> or perhaps you are using the wrong word?
> When you say 'should' be deprecated do you mean these commands 'are'
> deprecated or that you 'would like them to be' deprecated because they
> *do* work (except in this case) or are they not expected to work at
> all properly.
> I just am concerned there might be users that have a genuine use-case
> for this option and it still works for them even in the later
> versions?
> Perhaps you can give some words (like you have done before) that might
> be suitable for the warning/note and I, if needed, can make them more
> succinct in the English doc?

My explanation was poor.

I'd like "-dgs-load-fonts" and "-dgs-load-lily-fonts" to be deprecated.

If I understand correctly,
the both options use a ghostscript language extension ".loadfont".
Ghostscript developers seem to want us
to not use the ghostscript language extension.

As they said, to "use the documented method for loading fonts",
the both options can not be used.

So I propose that the both options are not used.

reply via email to

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