Am 22.12.2013 10:54, schrieb David Kastrup:
Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes:
Would somebody please be so kind and push the attached patch.
I rebased on origin/master and ran ct-section source-code.
make doc gave an error, but this pointed to
"fatal error: failed files: "60/lily-338514d2.ly""
so I think I can ignore this?
Actually, you can't ignore this. Take a look at
out/lybook-db/60/lily-338514d2.ly and identify which place in your docs
it comes from.
It's not part of the reviewed patch, obviously, but it would seem like
you managed to mess something up in your tree for a different reason.
Oh, it's a different issue.
That one was caused by running make doc from a not current build
directory (the snippet used newer functionality or syntax).
Now make doc ends with
###
make[4]: Entering directory
`/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/input/regression/lilypond-book'
GNUmakefile:24: warning: overriding commands for target
`out-www/collated-files.list'
../../../make/lysdoc-rules.make:6: warning: ignoring old commands for
target `out-www/collated-files.list'
cd ./out-www &&
/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/scripts/build/out/run-and-check
"dblatex suffix-lyxml.xml" "suffix-lyxml.dblatex.log"
Please check the logfile suffix-lyxml.dblatex.log for errors
make[4]: *** [out-www/suffix-lyxml.pdf] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory
`/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/input/regression/lilypond-book'
make[3]: *** [WWW-1] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/input/regression'
make[2]: *** [WWW-1] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current/input'
make[1]: *** [WWW-1] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/shared/git/3rdParty/lilypond-builds/current'
make: *** [doc-stage-1] Fehler 2
###
I don't see that logfile in input/regression/lilypond-book (nor a pdf).
I'm puzzled ...
I see that you used @code{vi} and @code{git-cl} rather than @command{vi}
and @command{git-cl}: any particular reason for that?
I was suggested to use that on Rietveld.
So, no, no particular reason.
If not, I would lean towards fixing this up before pushing. Ok with
you?
As I'm still working on it with the make doc issue I can also fix that
myself and resend a new patch.
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
