Re: size of pdf files

[Knut Petersen]

On 15.12.2014 11:05, Johan Vromans wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:18:21 +0100
> Knut Petersen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Shall we open a lilypond bug report? I don't know - the generated ps code
> > is valid and works, so there is no real bug. I think it would be a
> > feature request.
> It's a bit of both. PostScript is much more optimized to deal with normal
> 'show' than 'glyphshow', which is, or should be, used only in exceptional
> cases. So it would be beneficial to eliminate glyphshow as much as
> possible. This can be obtained the way Ken describes.

Well, I did some very ugly things to a few postscript / low level scm files 
this morning.
Nothing for release, only a proof of concept. These are the results from a 
luatex test
page including four small lilypond snippets:

pdf file size    description
=======================
168275    luaTeX output
152327    luaTeX output after gs optimizing run
1021630  luaTeX output with no-glyphshow-lilypond, gs with SubsetFonts=false
 59514     luaTeX output with no-glyphshow-lilypond, gs with SubsetFonts=false, 
after gs optimizing run


> But instead of fixing this, I think it is much more interesting to
> consider reworking the LP backend to directly produce PDF, and eliminate
> the ghostscript dependency.

Agreed, but that would be a lot of work. And we still would need ghostscript to 
optimize font usage
or a much improved includegraphics in the pdfTeX engine ...

cu,
 Knut