LilyIssues / Issues / #5201 Use -b together with -dgs-never-embed-fonts

Description has changed:

Diff:

--- old
+++ new
@@ -3,3 +3,12 @@
 Signed-off-by: Knut Petersen <knut_petersen@t-online.de>

 http://codereview.appspot.com/325630043
+
+There was an intense discussion about dramatically increased pdf file sizes caused by a patch in ghostscript.
+
+To make it short: I think this patch fixes the problem. Please test.
+
+You will see no effect without a working extractpdfmark package.
+
+one example: notation.pdf is back to 6.875.674 bytes.
+

Needs: -->

Anonymous - 2017-09-23

Passes make, make check and a full make doc although there are comments on Rietveld from Hosoda-san.

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

Anonymous - 2017-09-23

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

Knut Petersen - 2017-09-25

kill --bigpdfs, introduce --use-encodings, remove code not needed by ghostscript 9.20+

http://codereview.appspot.com/325630043

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

Anonymous - 2017-09-25

Needs: -->

Patch: new --> review

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

Anonymous - 2017-09-25

Passes make, make check and a full make doc

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

Knut Petersen - 2017-09-28

fix --eps, change bug report msg, fix documentation

http://codereview.appspot.com/325630043

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

Anonymous - 2017-09-28

Needs: -->

Patch: new --> review

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

Anonymous - 2017-09-28

Passes make, make check and a full make doc.

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

Anonymous - 2017-09-29

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

Anonymous - 2017-09-29

Patch on countdown for October 2nd

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

Anonymous - 2017-10-02

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

Anonymous - 2017-10-02

This looks like it can be pushed - but those that know better can either set this back to review of countdown as appropriate.

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- Knut Petersen - 2017-10-02
  
  Yes, it might be pushed.
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Anonymous - 2017-10-03

labels: --> Fixed_2_21_0

status: Started --> Fixed

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

Anonymous - 2017-10-03

author Knut Petersen <knut_petersen@t-online.de> Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:05:56 +0100 (15:05 +0100) committer James Lowe <pkx166h@gmail.com> Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:07:25 +0100 (15:07 +0100) commit 398c2e17d45bf4d18723e14d52531e4e7d006dea

p.s. for those interested; without Hosoda-san's extractpdfmark tool the NR (our largest PDF) is ~33MB in size. With it, as Knut notes, it shrinks down to an impressive ~6MB in size.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

David Kastrup - 2017-10-07

Ok, so this is for 2.21.0. What would be a good plan for 2.20 since the Ghostscript problems partly reliable for triggering this issue are also immanent for 2.20?

If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
- Knut Petersen - 2017-10-07
  
  I vote to include this patch in lilypond 2.20.
  
  Changing the code for print_glyph, trying to force Identity-H, supporting other notation fonts with the old --bigpdf or the new --pspdfopt=TeX-GS options and some other optimizations is definitely something for 2.21.
  
  If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
  - David Kastrup - 2017-10-10
    
    "this patch", as I understand it being the Rietveld issue in its final state, removed --bigpdf completely. At least that's what patch set 2 and patch set 3 claim in their message. It has a scope that was quite exceeding the scope that was agreed on to be sensible for 2.20 on the developer lists. This here is issue 5201, and the commit message for this issue states:
    commit 398c2e17d45bf4d18723e14d52531e4e7d006dea
    Author: Knut Petersen knut_petersen@t-online.de
    Date: Tue Oct 3 15:05:56 2017 +0100
    
    Adapt lilypond to ghostscript 9.22, change command line options Issue 5201 We need to adapt lilypond to ghostscript 9.22 as our old --bigpdf parameter is broken by the new version of gs. --bigpdf is totally removed. --pspdfopt=(size/TeX/TeX-GS) is implemented to allow the user to select the appropiate set of -d... parameters for different purposes. The patch also contains some minor fixes of related bugs, introduces --eps to the command line interface and changes the bug-report message, as post.gmane is gone.
    
    listing several changes that you say should not be a part of 2.20.
    
    So I don't really see what you mean here. What is your actual proposal/vision for 2.20?
    
    If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
    - Knut Petersen - 2017-10-10
      
      "this patch", as I understand it being the Rietveld issue in its final state, removed --bigpdf completely.
      
      Yes.
      
      This here is issue 5201, and the commit message for this issue states:
      commit 398c2e17d45bf4d18723e14d52531e4e7d006dea
      
      Yes. It's completely useless with gs 9.22.
      
      At least that's what patch set 2 and patch set 3 claim in their message. It has a scope that was quite exceeding the scope that was agreed on to be sensible for 2.20 on the developer lists.
      
      After some discussions and my "I dend to agree" DAK wrote:
      
      Well, so much for my plan of making the same options work for 2.20 and 2.21.
      
      My answer was to implement the code in patchset #3. After some minor modifications patchset 4 was accepted for master. The final patchset gives the possibility to use the same options for 2.20 and 2.21, I thought that was obvious.
      
      So I don't really see what you mean here. What is your actual proposal/vision for 2.20?
      
      I really thought my "I vote to include this patch in lilypond 2.20" was unequivocal. Cherry-pick 398c2e17d4 for lilypond 2.20.
      
      If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:

Use -b together with -dgs-never-embed-fonts

Issue Tracker for LilyPond

Searches

Help

#5201 Use -b together with -dgs-never-embed-fonts

Discussion