LilyIssues / Issues / #4737 Add XeTeX for document building

Anonymous - 2016-01-11

Passes make, make check and a full make doc.

Tested when combined with:

https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4729/
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4731/
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4732/
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4733/
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4734/
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4735/
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4736/

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Anonymous - 2016-01-11

Description has changed:

Diff:

Needs: -->

Patch: new --> review
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-01-12

texinfo.tex's XeTeX support seems have still some issues.

Here's LilyPond PDF documents generated by XeTeX.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByGBX3PDrqjsQmllOXBUQW1rbkU/view?usp=sharing

I've noticed that non-ascii characters of "Table of Contents" are broken.
Would you review XeTeX generated documents and find other problems?

I'll change Issue 4735, 4736 and 4737 patch status to needs_work.
I won't change status of Issue 4729, 4731, 4732, 4733 and 4734 because they are no problem.

Already, I've reported the broken TOC issue to bug-texinfo.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-01/msg00067.html

It is able to be resolved in LuaTeX.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-01/msg00069.html

However, we cannot use LuaTeX that still has another issue.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-01/msg00056.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-01/msg00055.html

On the other hands, in XeTeX, it is difficult to solve the broken TOC issue in a similar way as LuaTeX.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-01/msg00070.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-01/msg00071.html

I've created a texinfo.tex's patch for the broken TOC issue in other ways.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-01/msg00072.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-01/msg00073.html

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-01-12

Patch: review --> needs_work
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-04

By combining the following four patches,
I've succeed to compile all languages texi documents of LilyPond.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-02/msg00009.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-02/msg00010.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-02/msg00011.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-02/msg00020.html

Compiled PDFs are here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByGBX3PDrqjsMHJzX21uc0pxSTQ/view?usp=sharing

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Description has changed:

Diff:

--- old
+++ new
@@ -6,13 +6,7 @@
 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2015-12/msg00136.html
 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2016-01/msg00041.html

-*** This patch requires Issue 4729, 4731, 4732, 4733, 4734, 4735, 4736. ***
-https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4729/
-https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4731/
-https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4732/
-https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4733/
-https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4734/
+*** This patch requires Issue 4735. ***
 https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4735/
-https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4736/

 http://codereview.appspot.com/285790043

Patch: needs_work --> new

Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-09

All required patches are merged into Texinfo.

Texinfo update is Issue 4735.
So this patch requires Issue 4735.
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4735/

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- Anonymous - 2016-02-10
  
  Hosoda-san,
  
  I am not sure which Rietveld I need to test here? Issue 4735 has been tested and is in review so what do I need (as a patch tested) need to test here?
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
  - Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-11
    
    Does your environment have XeTeX and XeLaTeX?
    If no, would you install XeTeX and XeLaTeX by following command?
    
    $ sudo apt-get install texlive-xetex
    
    Then, would you test with combined following patches?
    
    Issue 4735 Patch Set 2
    https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4735/
    https://codereview.appspot.com/281300043
    
    Issue 4737 Patch Set 1
    https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4737/
    https://codereview.appspot.com/285790043
    
    And, would you show me the generated PDFs?
    
    Issue 4735 is texinfo.tex update that supports XeTeX.
    Issue 4737 is switching TeX engine from pdfTeX to XeTeX when XeTeX exists.
    Even if Issue 4737 is applied, pdfTeX will be used if there is no XeTeX.
    
    If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

David Kastrup - 2016-02-09

Why should we prefer XeTeX over PDFTeX for building the documentation?

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-09

Here's LilyPond PDF documents generated by XeTeX in my environment.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByGBX3PDrqjsZkF1VHFqakZqSGM/view?usp=sharing

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- David Kastrup - 2016-02-09
  
  How are they better than those generated with PDFTeX?
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-09

Some letters in PDF document is missing.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2015-12/msg00136.html

This is due to pdfTeX bug.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2015-12/msg00154.html

In order to avoid the bug I tried LuaTeX, but it failed.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2016-01/msg00041.html

Recently, texinfo.tex has been merged some XeTeX support patches.
So, In XeTeX, the letters missing issue is solved.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- David Kastrup - 2016-02-09
  
  From the discussion, sounds more like the inconsistency should be addressed in the TeXGyre fonts. Have the authors been notified?
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
  - Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-10
    
    If I understand correctly, the different glyph name is by design.
    
    The technical documentation of TeX Gyre Schola
    http://mirrors.ctan.org/fonts/tex-gyre/doc/fonts/tex-gyre/qcs-info.pdf
    says in page 5,
    
    ", the OTF name or the OTF name placed above the Type 1 name (if they differ)."
    
    In the table of the document, several glyphs (not only ligature glyphs) have different name.
    
    If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
    - David Kastrup - 2016-02-10
      
      Well, the thing is that this is a problem that can probably be reproduced purely by a TeX workflow. Wouldn't it also occur when using the pdftricks package (which uses straightforward TeX/dvips/Ghostscript for creating PDF graphics to be included into PDFTeX documents)? The TeX Gyre fonts are sponsored by TeX user groups and are developed by a Polish programmer team heavily involved with the Polish TeX user group, and in Poland PDFTeX is likely by far the most commonly used TeX variant.
      
      So if one can construct a use case done purely in the (mainstream) TeX world where this problem shows up, there is a significant chance that they'll change the design and/or kick the PDFTeX developers enough that they fix the problem on their side.
      
      With some hands-on example working (or rather failing) on every TeX system without having to install LilyPond or anything else, I'd be able to ask Bogusław take a look and suggest a good path.
      
      It may be that until this is fixed, XeTeX might be a usable workaround. It is embarrassing just how much work the use of UTF-8 examples in our documentation is actually turning out to be for you.
      
      If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
      - Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-10
        
        If I understand correctly, pdfTeX uses TeX Gyre Type 1 fonts.
        TeX Gyre OpenType fonts are not used.
        
        In other words, if you use only pdfTeX, the glyph name different issue does not occur.
        Because all of TeX Gyre fonts are Type1. The glyph names are same.
        
        XeTeX and LuaTeX can use TeX Gyre OpenType fonts.
        Would you think that they are mainstream TeX?
        
        If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Anonymous - 2016-02-11

Passes make, make check and a full make doc.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LHV2Ds6RkdkZEdYUG5fMGM

These are the En PDFs built with the two patches listed above

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Anonymous - 2016-02-11

Patch: new --> review
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Anonymous - 2016-02-15

Patch: review --> countdown
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Anonymous - 2016-02-15

Patch on countdown for February 18th.

NB: My tested compiled output is here

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LHV2Ds6RkdkZEdYUG5fMGM

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Anonymous - 2016-02-18

This seems (to me anyway) a fundamental change in the code base, it has reached 'push' stage and I have done my own link for building doc based on Hosoda's patch. No one has commented.

I am going to leave this on countdown but, Hosoda-san, if you think it can be pushed and my understanding is completely wrong (i.e. it is a trivial enhancement) then please push it.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-18
  
  I've noticed that your PDFs were generated by pdfTeX instead of XeTeX.
  Would you install XeTeX and XeLaTeX by following command?
  
  $ sudo apt-get install texlive-xetex
  
  Then, would you test this patch (Issue 4737 Patch Set 1) with current LilyPond master?
  https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4737/
  https://codereview.appspot.com/285790043
  
  Issue 4735 has been merged.
  
  Sorry I'm late.
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
  - Anonymous - 2016-02-19
    
    Hello Hosoda-san,
    
    I did the apt-get install for the xetex packages as you requested and then ran the 'normal' commands to make, make check and make doc. That link is the result of the (English) PDFs generated by the make doc.
    
    So I assume that something else (another set of commands) needs to be done to generate the PDFs with XeTex?
    
    James
    
    If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
    - Masamichi Hosoda - 2016-02-20
      
      Did you do "./autogen.sh --noconf" ?
      Would you show me "config.log" ?
      
      If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Add XeTeX for document building

Issue Tracker for LilyPond

Searches

Help

#4737 Add XeTeX for document building

Discussion