On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:50:23PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Anyway, as it stands, there is no documentation in obvious places about > how to make things run, the build procedures are highly non-standard, > the targets are non-standard. > > I am holding a talk tomorrow about Lilypond on a Linux conference. That > is the state I am going to report.
They care deeply about the ease of compiling the bleeding-edge unstable branch? Weird. But hey, I'm not going to argue that we open-source developers aren't weird. :) > It is a bit disappointing since the info documentation with images is > essential for really getting moving smoothly with Lilypond, Oh please. There's perhaps a dozen people in the world who want to read info docs for lilypond. Everybody else uses html or pdf. Now, I *will* admit that I've been confused and stymied by the lilypond build process. I've also spent a few hours looking at it to try to add new things (docs and lsr, obviously), but have always given up and whined to Han-Wen or Jan or John to add the stuff I wanted. I also agree that "make web" is *not* the most intuitive way to create the local documentation. But IMO there's more important tasks to tackle in the near future. This isn't a problem for our end-users, and it doesn't appear to be a problem for any of our other contributors. I really think this falls into the category of "does not meet the cost / benefit ratio". Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
