On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 10:29:25AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > Am Freitag, 8. September 2006 19:16 schrieb Helge Hafting: > > Helge Hafting wrote: > > > Georg Baum wrote: > > >> No, it will put it in the current directory (at least version 2.4.4) > > Urgh. Even 2.9.17 does this - I have now reported this bug to them. > > But view->pdf / view->dvi still works, I guess LyX is smart enough > > to run lilypond in the /tmp directory in these cases? > > Yes, because of the Path class, but Lars has stated several times that it > should go. > Oh well. Scripts for everything then :-/ Running lilypond directly is easier, but I have to make a script for png anyway - pdf & eps willø be easy enough to add.
> > I hope supporting lilypond 2.4 isn't necessary, export/view->pdflatex > > really like to include a .pdf file, which lilypond 2.6 and up provides. > > You decide what is necessary. If you say old releases are too difficult or > give too bad results, then we should test the version in configure.py, and > only add the converter if lilypond is recent enough. So far, this is what I have found: lilypond 2.4 can make .ps, or perhaps a full-page pdf. I see no way of making a .eps or a small .pdf. Perhaps that .ps file can be converted in a smart way, but then we're requiring postscript manipulation tools instead of a recent lilypond. lilypond 2.6 can make a nice .eps, but still only full-page pdf. So no pdflatex here either. lilypond 2.9 (development version) makes nice.eps and nice small .pdf files for inclusion too. I have not yet tested the stable lilypond 2.8, but I will. Looking at lilypond changelogs, it looks like output quality really have improved with versions, it isn't merely "more features". So I think someone who really care about nicely printed music will want a recent lilypond anyway. Therefore, I have little incentive for making old lilyponds work. Especially if doing so involves tricky postscript conversions that the newer versions simply don't need. Helge Hafting
