broken clef glyph
Hi there, my clef glyph looks broken (see attachment). I am on * commit 3c6b011ceedc9f3eb7908acac19cf7fe7bf54f5c (from Aug 25) * Fedora 19, which has MetaPost 1.802 (TeX Live 2013), on x86_64 anyone ideas where to find the cause? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen <>___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
"Han-Wen Nienhuys" wrote in message news:CAOw_e7a=XxhoaKzJpMgt0qkbZC-=j-3k+p2muc149jsprn_...@mail.gmail.com... Hi there, my clef glyph looks broken (see attachment). I am on * commit 3c6b011ceedc9f3eb7908acac19cf7fe7bf54f5c (from Aug 25) * Fedora 19, which has MetaPost 1.802 (TeX Live 2013), on x86_64 anyone ideas where to find the cause? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen Looks the same as http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2013-09/msg0.html -- Phil Holmes Bug Squad ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
2013/9/3 Han-Wen Nienhuys : > Hi there, > > my clef glyph looks broken (see attachment). see this thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2013-09/msg0.html ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Cc Norbert Preining since he's my best guess about who would have an idea how to proceed here. Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > Hi there, > > my clef glyph looks broken (see attachment). Permalink at http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/38148> See also http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2013-09/msg0.html> > I am on > > * commit 3c6b011ceedc9f3eb7908acac19cf7fe7bf54f5c (from Aug 25) > > * Fedora 19, which has MetaPost 1.802 (TeX Live 2013), on x86_64 > > anyone ideas where to find the cause? sudo tlmgr update --all or if you have TeXlive not in the system path sudo `which tlmgr` update --all The question is how to deal with that reasonably well. Ubuntu 13.10 alpha has the same problem, most likely inheriting from Debian (testing?) which probably has taken the broken version from the official TeXlive2013 DVD, or has its own broken compiled version. I have seen this problem first with the i386 (or i686?) version of Ubuntu 13.10 alpha. Now Fedora as well. Presumably both Debian and Fedora recompile from source with some version of GCC, so the problem may well be more than "just" a compiler bug in a single GCC version (reportedly, the version on TeXlive2013 has fixed the binaries by recompiling with a different GCC version). If this bug of TeXlive will persist into stable GNU/Linux distributions, it will likely have a devastating effect on LilyPond's reputation. It's not just the clef glyph that is prominently broken, but also a number of other frequent glyphs like the flags. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
> If this bug of TeXlive will persist into stable GNU/Linux > distributions, it will likely have a devastating effect on > LilyPond's reputation. It's not just the clef glyph that is > prominently broken, but also a number of other frequent glyphs like > the flags. Indeed. While I had reported the bug before releasing TexLive 2013, IIRC, it was not possible to stop the release process (again). I sincerely hope that both Debian and Fedora are going to use the *current* TeXLive version (from the SVN). Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Werner LEMBERG writes: >> If this bug of TeXlive will persist into stable GNU/Linux >> distributions, it will likely have a devastating effect on >> LilyPond's reputation. It's not just the clef glyph that is >> prominently broken, but also a number of other frequent glyphs like >> the flags. > > Indeed. While I had reported the bug before releasing TexLive 2013, > IIRC, it was not possible to stop the release process (again). > > I sincerely hope that both Debian and Fedora are going to use the > *current* TeXLive version (from the SVN). Well, the question is whether we can't do better than sincerely hoping. Can we prepare a report that a) prominently and clearly demonstrates that there is a _large_ problem b) prominently and clearly gives a working solution for fixing the problem c) get this out to all relevant parties in time. So far, I've been juggling with binaries to avoid the problem, but that's no working solution for a distribution, in particular not one compiled from source. Is there a clear picture somewhere about what causes the problem? And a reliable recipe for avoiding it? -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Hello, On 03/09/13 11:10, David Kastrup wrote: Werner LEMBERG writes: If this bug of TeXlive will persist into stable GNU/Linux distributions, it will likely have a devastating effect on LilyPond's reputation. It's not just the clef glyph that is prominently broken, but also a number of other frequent glyphs like the flags. Indeed. While I had reported the bug before releasing TexLive 2013, IIRC, it was not possible to stop the release process (again). I sincerely hope that both Debian and Fedora are going to use the *current* TeXLive version (from the SVN). Well is there something we can do in terms of damage limitation (reputation and emails to bug@lilypond) such that the 'make files' or the binary, or whatever can detect the fact that we have a bad version of whatever it is that is causing this and display something? My only comparison is for something like VLC that requires many third-party codecs so that when it fails to encode/decode something it will report the problem where 'XYZ is missing' and tell the user to to 'do something' (such like install a lib file or contact a third party but not complain to them). I know this isn't a fix, but it might take some load off of b...@lilypond.com when/if it eventually becomes mainstream. James ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Hi everyone, (putting TeX Live maintainer hat on) please: * mention a svn commit that fixes the problem * then we can update the TL2013 branch by incorporating this fix * distributions normally pull from the tl2013 branch, so if the fix is incorporated in the branch, it will also arrive at the users of distributions * maybe we can push binary updates this year to tl2013 main, I will discuss that with Karl (putting Debian hat on) * please file a bug report and mention the respective svn change that fixes the problem * I can upload a new package with fixes for this problem The worst is not reporting to us (Deibna and TeX Live upstream) Werner: Yes, indeed, it was too late when you reported it. What should we do when we are already in pressing phase. Please test the test releases in time - we rely on *you* and all the others to do tests, *we* cannot test all the combinations and special cases ... Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Hello Norbert! > * mention a svn commit that fixes the problem The last i386 GNU/Linux mpost binary works just fine for me; this is r30845. > * then we can update the TL2013 branch by incorporating this fix It seems that I was unclear: The current TeXLive SVN *does* work. > * distributions normally pull from the tl2013 branch, so if the fix > is incorporated in the branch, it will also arrive at the users of > distributions But apparently exactly this hasn't happened for both Debian and Fedora, according to reports on the lilypond mailing list. > * maybe we can push binary updates this year to tl2013 main, I will > discuss that with Karl The question is whether the distributions simply take the binaries, or whether the compile everything from scratch... > (putting Debian hat on) > > * please file a bug report and mention the respective svn change that > fixes the problem See above. > * I can upload a new package with fixes for this problem I don't use Debian, so I ask others to comment this. > Werner: Yes, indeed, it was too late when you reported it. I know. This was no criticism! It was just bad timing (because I was too busy with other things, not being able to recompile lilypond and test it with an updated TeXLive SVN). Most important for us is being able to reject buggy mpost versions, thus I wonder which versions are affected. Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Hi Werner, On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > * mention a svn commit that fixes the problem > > The last i386 GNU/Linux mpost binary works just fine for me; this is > r30845. > > > * then we can update the TL2013 branch by incorporating this fix > > It seems that I was unclear: The current TeXLive SVN *does* work. That does *not* count. Current TL SVN *nobody* is using, since there are too many development changes. You have to look at the svn bracnh tl2013. It seems to me that the branch contains the chagnes already in svn 30928 new metapost release (1.803) source files -- from r30833 so that would be fine. > But apparently exactly this hasn't happened for both Debian and > Fedora, according to reports on the lilypond mailing list. Fedora I don't know, but Debian/unstable contains texlive-bin 2013.20130729.30972-1 and includes already mp 1.803. The only problem is that due to debian-edu-doc blocking TeX Live, it has not entered testing till now. Thus, it probably has not entered Ubuntu by now. If someone pings the Ubuntu maintainers they might pull from Debian/unstable, while they normally only pull from Debian/testing. For Fedora - I don't know, please contact the maintainers and ask them to build from branch tl2013 and not from the released sources, as there are important bug fixes. > > * maybe we can push binary updates this year to tl2013 main, I will > > discuss that with Karl Actually we did this already ... my fault, I didn't check before. > The question is whether the distributions simply take the binaries, or > whether the compile everything from scratch... The compile from scratch, all of them. And it depends from which sources. > Most important for us is being able to reject buggy mpost versions, > thus I wonder which versions are affected. 1.802 from TL2013 as *released* on DVD. After that binary updates happened and the binaries are now at 1.803 and that is fine. Bottom line: * Debian/unstable is fine * Ubuntu still ships 2013.20130529.30792-1 which is too old, thus broken as soon as Ubuntu pulls from Debian it will be fine * Fedora: I don't know, it is a mess without clear structure * OpenSuSE: I just checked https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/Publishing:TeXLive/texlive and it seems that Werner uses texlive-20130620-source.tar.xz without any patches related to mf, so that means that OpenSuSE would ship broken mpost. As said, I will not take it up to inform all of them, but if there is someone, the best is to write bug reports to Fedora/OpenSuSE/Ubuntu. What I can do is write an email to tldistro@tug to inform the subscribed people that mit might be wise to rebuild the binaries from tl2013 branch. But if one of you is doing it with links to the buggy output and explanation why it is important, that would be great. All the best Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Norbert, thanks for your help. > If someone pings the Ubuntu maintainers they might pull from > Debian/unstable, while they normally only pull from Debian/testing. > > For Fedora - I don't know, please contact the maintainers and ask > them to build from branch tl2013 and not from the released sources, > as there are important bug fixes. Ubuntu, Fedora users, please do that! > * OpenSuSE: I just checked > https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/Publishing:TeXLive/texlive > and it seems that Werner uses texlive-20130620-source.tar.xz without > any patches related to mf, so that means that OpenSuSE would ship > broken mpost. Reported as https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838374 Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Hi Werner, On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838374 I added a remark for the other Werner there, thanks. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken clef glyph
Werner LEMBERG writes: > Norbert, thanks for your help. > > >> If someone pings the Ubuntu maintainers they might pull from >> Debian/unstable, while they normally only pull from Debian/testing. Debian testing is older than that (as far as I can see) and works fine. >> >> For Fedora - I don't know, please contact the maintainers and ask >> them to build from branch tl2013 and not from the released sources, >> as there are important bug fixes. > > Ubuntu, Fedora users, please do that! > >> * OpenSuSE: I just checked >> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/Publishing:TeXLive/texlive >> and it seems that Werner uses texlive-20130620-source.tar.xz without >> any patches related to mf, so that means that OpenSuSE would ship >> broken mpost. > > Reported as > > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838374 For Ubuntu, reported as https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/texlive-bin/+bug/1220653> -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
broken mpost binary from TeXLive (was: broken clef glyph)
Karl, Taco, we are talking about the mpost bug I've reported as http://tug.org/mailman/htdig/tex-live/2013-May/033640.html and which has been fixed meanwhile in TeXLive SVN (including binaries). The problem is that both Debian and Fedora currently ship broken binaries since they probably base their TeXLive distributions on the `TeXLive 2013' tag, which was used to produce the TeXLive DVDs. If this bug of TeXlive will persist into stable GNU/Linux distributions, it will likely have a devastating effect on LilyPond's reputation. It's not just the clef glyph that is prominently broken, but also a number of other frequent glyphs like the flags. >>> >>> Indeed. While I had reported the bug before releasing TeXLive >>> 2013, IIRC, it was not possible to stop the release process >>> (again). >>> >>> I sincerely hope that both Debian and Fedora are going to use the >>> *current* TeXLive version (from the SVN). > > Well is there something we can do in terms of damage limitation > (reputation and emails to bug@lilypond) such that the 'make files' > or the binary, or whatever can detect the fact that we have a bad > version of whatever it is that is causing this and display > something? I suggest that we exclude the affected mpost versions in lilypond's configure script. Is the working `post-tl13 bug-fix rebuild' of the binaries (as found in the current TeXLive SVN) based on metapost 1.803? And do you know which metapost version introduced this bug? I know that TeXLive SVN r26509 (for TeXLive 2012) works just fine. Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken mpost binary from TeXLive (was: broken clef glyph)
Is the working `post-tl13 bug-fix rebuild' of the binaries (as found in the current TeXLive SVN) based on metapost 1.803? Yes. Just run mpost --version. And do you know which metapost version introduced this bug? I don't know. As far as TL goes, there were no releases of mpost between TL'12 and TL'13. We did not do any bug-fix binaries in 2012 (and I sincerely hope we never have to again). So all I can say is that mpost 1.802, the original TL 2013 binary, has the bug. The TL'12 version was 1.504. I suggest that we exclude the affected mpost versions in lilypond's configure script. Makes sense to me, FWIW. That's the only thing you can control. None of us control what the distros do, and even if they changed, plenty of users would still have the bad version(s). Best, karl ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: broken mpost binary from TeXLive (was: broken clef glyph)
Hello Werner, 2013/9/3 Werner LEMBERG > I suggest that we exclude the affected mpost versions in lilypond's > configure script. > > do we need a tracker issue for this? -- Marek bug squad member ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
