On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 14:15 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Richard Shann <rich...@rshann.plus.com> writes: > > > On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 11:51 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > >> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > >> > >> _Very_ frustrating and unusable. Complains about missing libraries when > >> starting but those are available in Ubuntu.
I missed this bit when I replied before. Remarkable that it does actually start then, in fact, bizarre, this is not a static executable but a dynamic one with a bunch of shared libraries bundled in (like LilyPond, in fact, built with the same GUB machinery). > >> > >> Opens what feels like dozens of overlapping windows you first need to > >> cleanup. > > > > Yes, this has annoyed all ponders who have tried the latest Denemo. I > > guess they will have to stay closed on the first run. (Once you close > > them they stay closed if you quit cleanly). It will then be up to the > > user to find the palettes in the View menu and start exploring them. > > > >> Refuses to compile anything, stating in the print preview > > > > I wonder why - it works for some distros out of the box - otherwise you > > have to give the path to LilyPond in Edit->Change Prefs->Externals > > Nope. Not even with an explicit path to either 2.19.0 or 2.16.2. Just > displays the following screen shot. > > Also seems to have some memory managing problems: the fonts in the > windows displayed "E" instead of "k". This does indeed look like memory corruption - the other symptoms you give are not like anything I have seen with Denemo running correctly either. I thought I would test out the binary that is on denemo.org and downloaded it in a virtual machine running a vanilla Debian stable O/S, the result: it will not even start. The executables ~/usr/bin/denemo and ~/usr/bin/lilypond are present and have the right permissions but attempting to execute them from the bash prompt results in a baffling "No such file or directory" message: ls -l denemo -rwxr-xr-x 1 rshanngub rshanngub 1479840 Nov 25 23:00 denemo rshanngub@debianGUB:~/denemo/usr/bin$ ./denemo bash: ./denemo: No such file or directory rshanngub@debianGUB:~/denemo/usr/bin$ and then the same thing for lilypond: ls -l lilypond -rwxr-xr-x 1 rshanngub rshanngub 4377128 Nov 25 23:00 lilypond rshanngub@debianGUB:~/denemo/usr/bin$ ./lilypond bash: ./lilypond: No such file or directory This is something I've seen before and assumed was to do with my development environment. I think it gets tested on Ubuntu distributions before being uploaded, and certainly it seems to get a bit further on your distro. I can only appeal to anyone with a GNU/Linux system to test it out. > > >> window that LilyPond can't compile stuff (there is a version of LilyPond > >> in the path). One can open the LilyPond source file window (looks like > >> it should work in 2.19.0), but Denemo refuses to open the "LilyPond > >> error" window. > > > > It does actually open the LilyPond Errors pane, but as Denemo is unable > > to run LilyPond that is empty. > > The LilyPond Errors item is not a separate window but a pane in the > > LilyPond view, it would be better if the toggle for this lived in the > > LilyPond window. > > No, there is no LilyPond error view, not in a pane or otherwise. > > > Well as this is a LilyPond output window with no LilyPond executable > > found this is not by itself surprising. It should tell you (once only) > > that it didn't find LilyPond. > > It's a text in the window, and it does not change. > > >> So much for the binary install. I am not too enthused about the > >> prospect of having to compile from source just to be able to test > >> basic functionality and possibly get a better clue about the intended > >> startup behavior. > > > > For folk with compilers, autotools and so on already installed > > building from source is painless - it is not like running GUB. The > > list of packages needed is on the Download page. (Hmm, pretty > > painless, but there is some squabble amongst the distros about > > splitting up one library into two ...) > > > > I have put in bug reports for the problems you have unearthed - Thank > > you! > > Do you have any users actually having success with the binary package on > Ubuntu? If not, telling people that the "ancient" versions delivered > with the system itself are not to be used is creating a rather large > barrier of entry. As I say, I am told that it is a Ubuntu system that it gets tested on, but if would help if we got more feedback from users. I occasionally get visits from people with apple macs and the mac versions have worked on their machines and I test windows versions on two or three machines with various flavors of their o/ses. A GNU/Linux binary you would have thought would be easier than either of those to get working ... (As I wrote this I recalled that I have a small partition with Ubuntu 12.04 installed, I rebooted and went through the same process as with Debian Stable and got the same, bizarre result). I think we need to warn people that they may well need to built it :( Richard _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
