Don Blaheta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it possible that when configuring lilypond you don't require the > super-duper latest version of all the libraries unless there's actually > some feature there that you need?
I don't think so. > Which certainly sets an awfully high bar for contributing to the > project, if your intent is to just to use lilypond, the best way is to install a pre-compiled binary. If you intend to help the development the way to go is to install the fresh-and-sometimes-bleeding-edge libraries and compile from cvs. this may seem an awful lot of work at first, but one of the things I admire most in lily development process is the re-use of things. it's the opposite approach of the "it's not made here" syndrome that plagues so many projects. for instance, one project I know have sticked with a made-in-house branch of gtk-1.0 for a long time, now they are having a hard time to move the whole thing to gtk-2. Lilypond's development sometimes is pushing other applications a little further (like texinfo, etc), and this is a good thing(TM), even if take a little longer to set up a development box. > when you can't even get a working generated version of the _docs_ > without hacking around with installing the bleeding-edge version of > seven different libraries. as I said before, AFAIK texinfo did not have some things needed for a manual like lily's. Jan invested quite a good time to add these in texinfo. This is a good thing because texinfo is better because of that and lily does not have to use a half cocked hack instead. of course, the process of developers of these projects/libraries releasing new versions and distributions using them should be faster. That's one of the reasons I stopped using debian. this cycle is *away* too slow! Pedro Kröger _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
