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 th
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 15:21, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> Everything looks just normal. Acroread 5.0 on Linux should work
> fine, but maybe you should send (as attachments or refering to a
> WWW page) a small example file (preferably including both the .ly,
> the .ps and .pdf) so we could check.
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 14:02, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> It would be interesting to see the lines printed out by dvips.
> On my machine, it says something like
>
> This is dvips(k) 5.92b Copyright 2002 Radical Eye Software
> (www.radicaleye.com)
> ' TeX output 2003.10.07:1249' -> a.ps
> <0ef0af
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 11:16, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> The .map file is probably OK, but the critical thing is that the
> feta*.pfa files really belong to your current LilyPond version.
>
> What does
> grep CreationDate `kpsewhich feta20.pfa`
> return?
%%CreationDate: Mon Sep 29 03:59:26 2003
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 21:30, Marcelo Gomes de Queiroz wrote:
> Robert de Vries writes:
> > I have the same problem. The results of the builtin ps conversion look
> > dreadful.
>
> For me the problem was that the file /etc/texmf/dvips/lilypond.map
> was a sym
I have the same problem. The results of the builtin ps conversion look
dreadful.
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 11:23, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> Make sure that the files lilypond.map and feta20.pfa are installed and
> belong to the 2.0.0 installation. Also, make sure that the teTeX
> filename database
