David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Peekay Ex <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Hello again.. >> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Peekay Ex <pkx1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer >>> <reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>> Am Friday, 23. September 2011, 04:35:06 schrieben Sie: >>>>> > fatal error: failed files: "be/lily-48175def.ly" >>>>> >>>>> A decent build system would take that filename, grep it for >>>>> "\sourcefilename", and tell us *that* information, instead of the >>>>> current useless output. :) >> >> I used gitk to roll back the head to David's first branch merge >> >> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commit;h=31dc6e0a1b454c1186052f36cfac3e2e7c20325e >> >> and a full make doc (from a fresh build dir) worked fine. >> >> So the issue, by deduction, is somewhere in his second merged branch >> (Merge branch 'musicfunction-optional-arguments' - >> 83055a30e52c14b0fd49d6df3eb1c7af476ecb4b) and/or onwards. >> >> Hope that helps. >> >> Sorry David :( > > Would have been too lucky. Sigh. Looks like the rebasing managed to > make a non-working version out of several working (and regtest passing) > patches. > > I'll try fixing this in the next hour, otherwise I am going to revert. > Documentation is in the queue close to be checked in, specific regtests > will follow.
Here is the problem: \with-link declares its argument type wrong (declares symbol? and uses #"label", a string). My patch has the side-effect that markup commands actually check their argument lists for correctness. Previously it just let any Scheme argument through completely unchecked. Now I could revert my branch merge, or I could prepare a patch that stops type-checking the argument lists to markup commands, but I think it is saner if we grit our teeth and just fix the previously unnoticed bugs as they get exposed. Sorry about that. I am fixing the one with \with-link in the next 15 minutes. Given my slow computer, it might help if others do the regtest runs after that. I am somewhat surprised that the patch passed testing by someone else, though. It would seem that doc builds are not part of that. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
