If you can do without lybookdb, it would be a more robust although less scalable design. I am not sure how intricate batching all of the png/pdf/eps generation is, we should probably decide after seeing the code that implements it.
Lilypond being dominated by eps/png/pdf generation, and EPS/PDF generation being dominated by initialization seems plausible, but the discussion on savings would be helped by real numbers. Could you investigate if you can get numbers for how much time is spent in each of the programs? Barring a working implementation, some profiling already helps a lot in deciding what to do. On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Well, I am currently in the process of running make info (similar to > make doc), and this is totally silly. > > In my opinion, the whole lybook-db stuff needs to go. Instead, Lilypond > is run _once_ for all snippets of a lybook source, generating _one_ > PostScript file. Then GhostScript is run _once_ to generate a bunch of > eps files, or a multi-page PDF file with all graphics in them which get > referenced as needed. > > Bleedover of variables/fonts/whatever is not all that crucial since we > are talking about a single document source rather than an immaculate > database. on the contrary: the regtest is a tely document, so bleed will cause spurious diffs in the regtest, at least in the pixel comparison. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
