[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Strange difference between release and self-compiled binary on "2" g

From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: Re: Strange difference between release and self-compiled binary on "2" glyph
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:17:47 +0000 (UTC)

> This is the output of
> \markup \number 2
> using the official 2.25.2 Linux binaries on the one hand, and a
> self-compiled build made on the v2.25.2 tag from a clean directory
> on the other hand (PS backend in both cases).

My self-compiled LilyPond produces the 'other' glyph version (i.e.,
not `two.png`).

> If you look carefully at the tails on the right, you can see that
> they are different. Also, the first one has a thinner "choke point"
> on the left. This is easier to see on the attached screencast.  Does
> anybody have an idea what might be causing this?  Maybe different
> versions of METAFONT or FontForge?

Attached you can find the METAFONT proof sheet for glyph 'two'.  Since
METAFONT is not involved in our font production chain (METAPOST is),
it is a good indicator that the 'other' glyph version is the right

BTW, a PFB font without FontForge postprocessing can be created with

FONTFORGE=foo perl ../scripts/build/ --rounding=0.0001

For glyph 'two', the postprocessing effects are very subtle; FontForge
adds points at all extrema and reduces the number of points to get
smaller fonts (ensuring that the outline changes are less than a
certain threshold).  I suspect that this last step doesn't work


PNG image

reply via email to

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