On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 19:02 +0000, Graham Percival wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 07:50:57PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > With this change, I see a dramatic change in font size -- the > > > vertical length of the post-font-name "p" is less than half of the > > > vertical length of the pre-font-name "p". > > > > Yes. However, it doesn't matter IMHO. On the console, lilypond > > reports the same font size, and this should be checked in the > > regression test, nothing else. > > I see. I think I misunderstood your description of the change -- > when I compile the current regtest, I see no unusual output (at > least, not with a typical "lilypond font-name-font-size.ly" > invocation). > > If the console output is the only thing that matters, could the > texidoc reflect this? I don't want helpful bug volunteers trying > to figure out what's (apparently) wrong with the graphical output, > if in fact nothing is wrong. > > > > Should it be an error instead? > > > > An error indicating what? > > in configure -- if fontconfig < 201005xy, die with an error, > instead of merely giving a warning. I proposed this because I > thought that your system (which I'm guessing has fontconfig 201005 > or higher) produced different graphical output than mine. > It seems that this isn't relevant, so ignore this suggestion. >
As the "helpful bug volunteer" on duty today, I'd be glad of a bit of guidance: is there an issue to be raised, or should we just add this exchange to issue 711? Colin -- When a train goes through a tunnel and it gets dark, you don't throw away the ticket and jump off. You sit still and trust the engineer. - Corrie Ten Boom, author and Holocaust survivor _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel