Re: [Laura Conrad] Lilypond-book problem

[Herman Grootaers]

On Saturday 11 June 2005 09:39, you wrote:
> On 10-Jun-05, at 11:54 PM, Herman Grootaers wrote:
> > I get a ps-file when I do:
> >
> > %%%%%%%%%%%%
> > ##### :$ lilypond-book --format=latex --output=output --psfonts=psfonts
> > liturgie.tex &>liturgie.log
> > ##### :$ cd output
> > ##### :$ latex liturgie.tex >>../liturgie.log 2>&1
> > ##### :$ dvips -o -h liturgie.psfonts liturgie >>../liturgie.log 2>&1
> > %%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> That's why the next command is ps2pdf.  It's in the docs, 12.6.  Is this
> info lacking somewhere else?
>

Just that dvips with the option -o generates a ps-file, the option in the book 
12.1 and following chapters make things more complex in my poinyt of view. I 
use a ps-file for bughunting the output, before converting it to pdf; xdvi 
gives me the general lay-out of a page, but not the details about each 
system. I mean here that it marks in red the boxes the place where a system 
should go, which is quite difficult to lay-out a book.

When I was checking my last comment, found that in the documentation section 
10.1 the output of creating titles has extra space above and is too much 
shifted to the left, killing in effect the leftmargin of the page. (just 
nit-picking;=)).

>
> > BTW, dvips yells that the fonts needed are not included into the
> > ps-fonts-file, allthough output is correct.
>
> We know; there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it.
>
Pity, it should be mentioned in the documentation of the example of the piece 
from Han-Wen, so the users will know what they can expect as normal 
behaviour. It generates a lot less noice to the maintainers, when users know 
what they can expect, and the documentation becomes more clean, when bugs are 
removed. Not all output is bad (infamous trademark off-course), and they can 
see what is generally is normal, and what definitively is not usual.

Thanks,
Herman Grootaers