Ken Sharp <ken.sh...@artifex.com> writes: > At 20:38 18/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > >>I think "slightly smaller" was something like a factor of 10. We are >>talking about files including literally thousands if not ten thousands >>of graphics (manuals close to a thousand pages with lots of graphic >>output included). > > Then maybe you should complain to the software producing that content.
The software producing that content is LilyPond itself (in the case of the manuals we are talking about, via a tool LilyPond-Book), so there is no point in complaining since it is under our control. The question is what the complaint should be, namely what LilyPond does wrong. Producing large comprehensive manuals using TeX including lots of example images generated using the same fonts? To me that sounds like a stock typesetting task with mainstream tools that Ghostscript should be suitable for. But obviously you think there must be something wrong with the way we are generating and including a large amount of images into one document. Would you be willing to help us figure out a different way in which we could make this work? In particular Masamichi Hosoda has invested months of work chasing various Ghostscript versions and their idiosyncrasies and figuring out the best-suited TeX engines to be using for that task, so if there is an easy solution he and others have overlooked, it certainly would help having someone on board who has a clue about where Ghostscript is and should be heading. > I already said I would discuss this further, berating me will not > induce me to make changes. I don't see where explaining the use case for which the availability of the option makes much more of a difference than what you thought it would does amount to "berating" you. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel