Re: compilation issue with font-name-font-size.ly

[Colin Campbell]

On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 19:02 +0000, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 07:50:57PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > With this change, I see a dramatic change in font size -- the
> > > vertical length of the post-font-name "p" is less than half of the
> > > vertical length of the pre-font-name "p".
> > 
> > Yes.  However, it doesn't matter IMHO.  On the console, lilypond
> > reports the same font size, and this should be checked in the
> > regression test, nothing else.
> 
> I see.  I think I misunderstood your description of the change --
> when I compile the current regtest, I see no unusual output (at
> least, not with a typical "lilypond font-name-font-size.ly"
> invocation).
> 
> If the console output is the only thing that matters, could the
> texidoc reflect this?  I don't want helpful bug volunteers trying
> to figure out what's (apparently) wrong with the graphical output,
> if in fact nothing is wrong.
> 
> > > Should it be an error instead?
> > 
> > An error indicating what?
> 
> in configure -- if fontconfig < 201005xy, die with an error,
> instead of merely giving a warning.  I proposed this because I
> thought that your system (which I'm guessing has fontconfig 201005
> or higher) produced different graphical output than mine.
> It seems that this isn't relevant, so ignore this suggestion.
> 

As the "helpful bug volunteer" on duty today, I'd be glad of a bit of
guidance: is there an issue to be raised, or should we just add this
exchange to issue 711?

Colin
-- 
When a train goes through a tunnel and it gets dark, you don't throw
away the ticket and jump off. You sit still and trust the engineer. -
Corrie Ten Boom, author and Holocaust survivor