On 7/3/09 1:02 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 12:41:32PM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
>> Graham Percival wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>> Does this still compile the lilypond examples? That would take
>>> take much longer than 10-30 seconds.
>>
>> I'm able to copy to different location and compile certain files by
>> themselves as long as they don't require a bunch of @include files. They
>> compile very quickly this way. I wonder if it might help to define some
>> new Make targets. For example "make lilypond-learning.pdf" would only
>> compile the LM, and I would assume save quite a bit of time in compiling
>> over "make doc".
>
> I was already planning on splitting the docs into
> Documentation/learning, Documentation/notation, etc., so that
> would implicitly do this anyway. :)
I thought you were planning on making it
documentation/learning
(i.e, eliminating the D).
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
