However, I checked the contents of the lilypond-2.0.1-1.i386.rpm
file available at lilypond.org today and it seems to be newer than
your failing files ("%%CreationDate: Tue Sep 30 11:34:53 2003" in the
header of the feta13.pfa file, whereas yours was from Sep 29). Maybe it
was corrected after you downloaded your copy.Mats
Robert de Vries wrote:
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 17:23, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
There's something strange with the feta13.pfa that's embedded in the your Postscript file. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent enough in Postscript to realize what the problem is. You mentioned in your first email that you had installed the "2.0.1 redhat version as made available from the download page". I can't see any RedHat 2.0.1, so exactly what .rpm file did you download? Have you tried any other of the .rpm files?
I downloaded the one compiled for fedora (Severn/test2).
As it seems that you find the package suspect, I have rebuilt the lilypond 2.0.1 from the tarball, and lo and behold, no more funny stuff! It works.
It seems that the fedora package has been incorrectly built.
I hereby offer my rpm packages for RedHat 9 on my web site.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhdv/music/index.html
Robert
-- ============================================= Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing Signals, Sensors and Systems Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe =============================================
_______________________________________________ Lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
