[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Strange behavior with unfound text font

From: Jean Abou Samra
Subject: Strange behavior with unfound text font
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:11:52 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1


Coincidentally, at the same time as Lukas, I found another
font-related glitch, although I don't think it's the same:

\markup \override #'(font-name . "Nonexistent Bold") "ABC"

With 2.22, this compiles without warning, and the resulting PDF
contains the font "DejaVuSans-Bold" (according to pdffonts).

With 2.23.82, it gives me

GNU LilyPond 2.23.82 (running Guile 2.2)
Processing `'
warning: cannot get postscript name
warning: no PostScript font name for font `/usr/share/fonts/google-noto-vf/NotoSans-VF.ttf'
warning: FreeType face has no PostScript font name
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Converting to `unfound-font.pdf'...
Success: compilation successfully completed

The resulting PDF is blank.

In a sense, it's normal and good that you get warnings for
a nonexistent font, but the warning isn't very user-friendly.
Furthermore, I wonder if this hides a genuine problem because
if I change "Nonexistent Bold" to just "Nonexistent", it compiles
without warnings. However, the font I get in that case is not
DejaVuSans as in 2.22, but NotoSans. Might be related to the
fact that Fedora (which I use) changed the default fonts to
the Noto family at some point:

The first version that gives this new behavior is 2.23.8,
which points to the update of dependencies in commit

FreeType 2.11.0 => 2.12.0
Fontconfig 2.13.1 => 2.14.0
Pango 1.48.7 => 1.50.6

Thoughts? Werner?


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]