Re: guile-2.0 and debian
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: [...] > Hi Antonio, > > I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 > and guile 2.0.13: > > For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master, > then I did 'make test-baseline'. > Then I copied the entire folder 'lilypond-git/build/input' elsewhere. > > As second step I got guile 2.0.13 back > (Which is pretty tedious, because it's not in the distro, even not for > Ubuntu 16.10, if I'm not mistaken.) > Did a build with your _previous_ patches. (Your mail with the new > patch-set came in while it was running already.) > Copied 'lilypond-git/build/input' back into the new build. > And did 'make check' > > This is pretty tedious as well. Anyone with a better suggestion? > You could install debian stable in a virtual machine. Or for a more lightweight approach you can create a debian stable tree using debootstrap and run a shell from it in a container with systemd-nspawn, this is what I did for my quick tests with guile-1.8. The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in that case a debian unstable container is to be used. I can elaborate more if there is interest. > I decided not to abort the running process. Even if the results may be > outdated they may give some hints for further TODOs. > It seems they are all instances of the same already known issue, > though. I attach them anyway, other readers of this thread may be > interested... > > Because index.html contains not the linked images, they are attached > as screenshots > Some browsers allow to save a complete web page, with all the linked images in a directory, at least firefox does. BTW the results are promising, with my latest patchset the UTF-8 characters should be rendered fine. The images are not pixel perfect because when using guile-2.0 the floating point numbers in the postscript output are formatted slightly differently and that results in different positioning of the symbols on the score, but I haven't looked deeply into that. Ciao, Antonio -- Antonio Ospite https://ao2.it https://twitter.com/ao2it A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Antonio Ospite writes: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > > [...] >> Hi Antonio, >> >> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 >> and guile 2.0.13: >> >> For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master, >> then I did 'make test-baseline'. >> Then I copied the entire folder 'lilypond-git/build/input' elsewhere. >> >> As second step I got guile 2.0.13 back >> (Which is pretty tedious, because it's not in the distro, even not for >> Ubuntu 16.10, if I'm not mistaken.) Isn't 2.0.12 sufficient? >> Did a build with your _previous_ patches. (Your mail with the new >> patch-set came in while it was running already.) >> Copied 'lilypond-git/build/input' back into the new build. >> And did 'make check' >> >> This is pretty tedious as well. Anyone with a better suggestion? >> > > You could install debian stable in a virtual machine. > > Or for a more lightweight approach you can create a debian stable tree > using debootstrap and run a shell from it in a container with > systemd-nspawn, this is what I did for my quick tests with guile-1.8. > > The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in > that case a debian unstable container is to be used. > > I can elaborate more if there is interest. The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base lilydev on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu. There is a bit of impetus for getting a hold of the Guile-2.0 issue and I find that expanding the base of people willing to dig into matters would be a useful thing. It might also improve chances of getting actual Guile developers touching our problem spaces. Having the kind of work Thomas invests here be doable with straight lilydev could draw some more participation. And it's very likely to be an area of the "the last 10% take 90% of fiddling" kind where "it almost works" is a good incentive for further diggers. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
2016-11-23 9:23 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > > [...] >> Hi Antonio, >> >> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 >> and guile 2.0.13: >> >> For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master, >> then I did 'make test-baseline'. >> Then I copied the entire folder 'lilypond-git/build/input' elsewhere. >> >> As second step I got guile 2.0.13 back >> (Which is pretty tedious, because it's not in the distro, even not for >> Ubuntu 16.10, if I'm not mistaken.) >> Did a build with your _previous_ patches. (Your mail with the new >> patch-set came in while it was running already.) >> Copied 'lilypond-git/build/input' back into the new build. >> And did 'make check' >> >> This is pretty tedious as well. Anyone with a better suggestion? >> > > You could install debian stable in a virtual machine. > > Or for a more lightweight approach you can create a debian stable tree > using debootstrap and run a shell from it in a container with > systemd-nspawn, this is what I did for my quick tests with guile-1.8. > > The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in > that case a debian unstable container is to be used. > > I can elaborate more if there is interest. I've already set up debian unstable in a VM, but somewhere I made a mistake and didn't try to fix it up to now ... > >> I decided not to abort the running process. Even if the results may be >> outdated they may give some hints for further TODOs. >> It seems they are all instances of the same already known issue, >> though. I attach them anyway, other readers of this thread may be >> interested... >> >> Because index.html contains not the linked images, they are attached >> as screenshots >> > > Some browsers allow to save a complete web page, with all the linked > images in a directory, at least firefox does. My last mail wasn't distributed to the mailing-list, because of too huge attachments. Can't say I'm really surprised. I'll not try to circumvent it, it would only document an intermediate state. > > BTW the results are promising, with my latest patchset the UTF-8 > characters should be rendered fine. The images are not pixel perfect > because when using guile-2.0 the floating point numbers in the > postscript output are formatted slightly differently and that results > in different positioning of the symbols on the score, but I haven't > looked deeply into that. The regtest-comparison with your recent patches are fine. No issue visible!! I'll attach the file. The image for test-output-distance.ly will be missing, but that's our test, if a regtest-comparison did happen at all, so not a problem. After a quick glance over the other stuff I didn't notice problems. Cheers, Harmr click to filter rows by type: [1]ly / [2]profiling / [3]signature / [4]midi / [5]log / [6]gittxt / [7]reset to all __ 1152 below threshold 2679 unchanged __ distance input/regression/out-test-baseline input/regression/out-test 14.196585 ([8]details) [9][test-output-distance.png] [10]input/regression/test-output-distance.ly [11][test-output-distance.compare.jpeg] [12]input/regression/test-output-distance.ly 4.242641 [13]input/regression/display-lily-tests.log @@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ \revert Voice.NoteColumn.horizontal-shift } +/home/hermann/lilypond-git/input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:229:1: warnin g: Test unequal: BUG. +in = \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) +out = \applyOutput Foo ##f + + +\test ##[ \applyOutput Foo #(lambda (arg) (list)) #] +/home/hermann/lilypond-git/input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:230:1: warnin g: Test unequal: BUG. +in = \applyOutput Foo.NoteHead #(lambda (arg) (list)) +out = \applyOutput Foo.NoteHead ##f + + +\test ##[ \applyOutput Foo.NoteHead #(lambda (arg) (list)) #] +/home/hermann/lilypond-git/input/regression/display-lily-tests.ly:232:1: warnin g: Test unequal: BUG. +in = \applyContext #(lambda (arg) (list)) +out = \applyContext ##f + + +\test ##[ \applyContext #(lambda (arg) (list)) #] Interpreting music... Interpreting music... Interpreting music... [14]input/regression/display-lily-tests.log 4.00 [15]input/regression/option-help.log @@ -67,7 +67,14 @@ Set GhostScript's output format for pixel images. point-and-click (#f)Add point & click links to PDF and SVG output. preview (#f)Create preview images also. - print-pages (#t)Print pages in the normal way. + print-pages (#t) +Writing header field `texidoc' to `./option-help.texidoc'... +Layout output to `./option-help.eps'... +Writing ./option-help-systems.texi... +Writing ./option-help-systems.tex... +Writing ./option-help-systems.count... +Writing timing to option-help.profile.
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
2016-11-23 9:34 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Antonio Ospite writes: > >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 >> Thomas Morley wrote: >> >> [...] >>> Hi Antonio, >>> >>> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 >>> and guile 2.0.13: >>> >>> For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master, >>> then I did 'make test-baseline'. >>> Then I copied the entire folder 'lilypond-git/build/input' elsewhere. >>> >>> As second step I got guile 2.0.13 back >>> (Which is pretty tedious, because it's not in the distro, even not for >>> Ubuntu 16.10, if I'm not mistaken.) > > Isn't 2.0.12 sufficient? I _think_ 2.10.12 would be sufficient. But I read this correctly: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/guile-2.0 then there's no guile 2.10.12 in Ubuntu and 2.0.11 does _not_ work. Which leads me to the question, how we should proceed, if we really manage to get 2.0.12/13 working sufficiently? I imagine a plethora of users not having 2.0.12 and no reasonable chance for average users to get it. > >>> Did a build with your _previous_ patches. (Your mail with the new >>> patch-set came in while it was running already.) >>> Copied 'lilypond-git/build/input' back into the new build. >>> And did 'make check' >>> >>> This is pretty tedious as well. Anyone with a better suggestion? >>> >> >> You could install debian stable in a virtual machine. >> >> Or for a more lightweight approach you can create a debian stable tree >> using debootstrap and run a shell from it in a container with >> systemd-nspawn, this is what I did for my quick tests with guile-1.8. >> >> The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in >> that case a debian unstable container is to be used. >> >> I can elaborate more if there is interest. > > The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base lilydev > on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu. > There is a bit of impetus for getting a hold of the Guile-2.0 issue and > I find that expanding the base of people willing to dig into matters > would be a useful thing. Yep > It might also improve chances of getting > actual Guile developers touching our problem spaces. > > Having the kind of work Thomas invests here be doable with straight > lilydev could draw some more participation. > > And it's very likely to be an area of the "the last 10% take 90% of > fiddling" kind where "it almost works" is a good incentive for further > diggers. Cheers, Harm ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
2016-11-23 10:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley : > > The regtest-comparison with your recent patches are fine. > No issue visible!! I didn't try a full make doc, but will do this afternoon. (I probably will have some time, without net-acces, though) Also, I'd like to test with a huge score. I remember there were some problems with garbage-collection with large files. I don't have something to test at hand, I'll ask on the user-list. Cheers, Harm ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Thomas Morley writes: > 2016-11-23 9:34 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : >> Antonio Ospite writes: >> >>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 >>> Thomas Morley wrote: >>> >>> [...] Hi Antonio, I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 and guile 2.0.13: For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master, then I did 'make test-baseline'. Then I copied the entire folder 'lilypond-git/build/input' elsewhere. As second step I got guile 2.0.13 back (Which is pretty tedious, because it's not in the distro, even not for Ubuntu 16.10, if I'm not mistaken.) >> >> Isn't 2.0.12 sufficient? > > I _think_ 2.10.12 would be sufficient. > But I read this correctly: > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/guile-2.0 > then there's no guile 2.10.12 in Ubuntu and 2.0.11 does _not_ work. Ok. > Which leads me to the question, how we should proceed, if we really > manage to get 2.0.12/13 working sufficiently? > > I imagine a plethora of users not having 2.0.12 and no reasonable > chance for average users to get it. We'll want to keep compilable with Guile 1.8 for now. When configure finds Guile less than 2.0.12, it will bomb out. Our Gub packages compile with their own version of libguile (correct?) so they should not be affected. If configure bombs out for not-current versions of Guile 2.0 for distributors, they will likely update Guile. I don't think we currently have a sane strategy for Guile's *.go compilations of LilyPond yet: I think they should come precompiled and preinstalled. Before that is the case, I don't think it makes sense to _not_ mark Guile 2 support as experimental, including requiring the --enable-guile2 option (or what it was called). Of course, who does the work gets to call the tune. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
David Kastrup writes: >> I imagine a plethora of users not having 2.0.12 and no reasonable >> chance for average users to get it. > > We'll want to keep compilable with Guile 1.8 for now. When configure > finds Guile less than 2.0.12, it will bomb out. Correction: Guile 2 less than 2.0.12. Obviously 1.8.8 should continue working. I also think that some changes in the current patch set might start failing again with Guile 2.1. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Il giorno mer 23 nov 2016 alle 9:34, David Kastrup ha scritto: The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base lilydev on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu. There is a bit of impetus for getting a hold of the Guile-2.0 issue and I find that expanding the base of people willing to dig into matters would be a useful thing. It might also improve chances of getting actual Guile developers touching our problem spaces. Having the kind of work Thomas invests here be doable with straight lilydev could draw some more participation. LilyDev is based on Debian stable. This package https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=guile-2.0 is currently available as version 2.0.11 in stable and 2.0.13 in testing. I may release a new ISO image with version 2.0.13, if this is what you need. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Federico Bruni writes: > Il giorno mer 23 nov 2016 alle 9:34, David Kastrup ha > scritto: >> The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base >> lilydev >> on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu. >> There is a bit of impetus for getting a hold of the Guile-2.0 issue >> and >> I find that expanding the base of people willing to dig into matters >> would be a useful thing. It might also improve chances of getting >> actual Guile developers touching our problem spaces. >> >> Having the kind of work Thomas invests here be doable with straight >> lilydev could draw some more participation. > > LilyDev is based on Debian stable. > > This package > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=guile-2.0 > > is currently available as version 2.0.11 in stable and 2.0.13 in > testing. > > I may release a new ISO image with version 2.0.13, if this is what you > need. I don't know who currently uses Lilydev. But for the Guilev2 work and testing, 2.0.11 is just not going to do the job. There are just too many Guile bugs requiring workarounds to make this a viable platform for getting LilyPond out of the Guilev2 quagmire. So it really depends on the overlap of people using Lilydev and people trying to help with the Guilev2 effort on whether this would help. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:34:05 +0100
David Kastrup wrote:
> Antonio Ospite writes:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100
> > Thomas Morley wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >> Hi Antonio,
> >>
> >> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8
> >> and guile 2.0.13:
> >>
> >> For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master,
> >> then I did 'make test-baseline'.
> >> Then I copied the entire folder 'lilypond-git/build/input' elsewhere.
> >>
> >> As second step I got guile 2.0.13 back
> >> (Which is pretty tedious, because it's not in the distro, even not for
> >> Ubuntu 16.10, if I'm not mistaken.)
>
> Isn't 2.0.12 sufficient?
>
It should be, yes, guile-2.0.13 fixed some security issues but I didn't
see bug fixes relevant to lilypond.
However as others have said Debian never packaged 2.0.12 and it is going
to have 2.0.13 in the next stable release so 2.0.13 is the most
convenient to use, at least for me and other debian users.
But I agree that the autoconf check can be >= 2.0.12.
[...]
> > You could install debian stable in a virtual machine.
> >
> > Or for a more lightweight approach you can create a debian stable tree
> > using debootstrap and run a shell from it in a container with
> > systemd-nspawn, this is what I did for my quick tests with guile-1.8.
> >
> > The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in
> > that case a debian unstable container is to be used.
> >
> > I can elaborate more if there is interest.
>
> The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base lilydev
> on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu.
> There is a bit of impetus for getting a hold of the Guile-2.0 issue and
> I find that expanding the base of people willing to dig into matters
> would be a useful thing. It might also improve chances of getting
> actual Guile developers touching our problem spaces.
>
> Having the kind of work Thomas invests here be doable with straight
> lilydev could draw some more participation.
>
Ah I didn't know about lilydev (https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev).
Updating it to Debian testing aka Stretch (the _next_ Debian stable
release) will expose people to guile-2.0.13.
Federico, AFAICT the current 4.1 works fine for guile-1.8 (FTR Debian
stable has both 1.8.8 and 2.0.11, but lilydev only provides the former),
maybe if you release a version based on Stretch use 5.0 as version
number to make it easier to differentiate between the two.
BTW for those who don't want to run a full virtual machine, a
lightweight lilydev container can be created and launched with the
attached script.
> And it's very likely to be an area of the "the last 10% take 90% of
> fiddling" kind where "it almost works" is a good incentive for further
> diggers.
I was saving the joke "80% done, 80% to go" for later, but you
anticipated me :) which is good as it means that we are on the same
page.
Up to now I hacked my way around the problems in my spare time just to
make lilypond build and run with guile-2.0 so that debian could package
it, but I do realize that my patches are far from being "mergeable".
If there any chances about having some paid time sponsored to fix things
properly I may consider doing it, feel free to contact me off-list.
Ciao ciao,
Antonio
--
Antonio Ospite
https://ao2.it
https://twitter.com/ao2it
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
#!/bin/sh
set -x
set -e
# TODO
# - add integrity checks for the downloaded image
# - check that wget and unsquashfs are available
# - maybe add support for passing the version on the command line
# - maybe use 'trap' to cleanup the temp dir if some command fails
LILYDEV_RELEASE="4.1"
LILYDEV_IMAGE="lilydev-${LILYDEV_RELEASE}-i386.hybrid.iso"
LILYDEV_ROOTFS_DIR=$(basename $LILYDEV_IMAGE .hybrid.iso)
if [ ! -d "$LILYDEV_ROOTFS_DIR" ];
then
if [ ! -f "$LILYDEV_IMAGE" ];
then
wget "https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/releases/download/${LILYDEV_RELEASE}/${LILYDEV_IMAGE}";
fi
TEMP_MOUNT_POINT=$(mktemp -d)
sudo mount -o loop "$LILYDEV_IMAGE" "$TEMP_MOUNT_POINT"
sudo unsquashfs -d "$LILYDEV_ROOTFS_DIR" "$TEMP_MOUNT_POINT/live/filesystem.squashfs"
sudo umount "$TEMP_MOUNT_POINT"
fi
sudo systemd-nspawn -D "$LILYDEV_ROOTFS_DIR"
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Il giorno mer 23 nov 2016 alle 15:10, Antonio Ospite ha scritto: Ah I didn't know about lilydev (https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev). Updating it to Debian testing aka Stretch (the _next_ Debian stable release) will expose people to guile-2.0.13. Federico, AFAICT the current 4.1 works fine for guile-1.8 (FTR Debian stable has both 1.8.8 and 2.0.11, but lilydev only provides the former), maybe if you release a version based on Stretch use 5.0 as version number to make it easier to differentiate between the two. I prefer waiting for the release of Stretch, then I'll use 5.0 as version number, as you suggest. Until then I'd rather use pinning for this package. BTW for those who don't want to run a full virtual machine, a lightweight lilydev container can be created and launched with the attached script. Nice, thanks ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Hello, > The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in > that case a debian unstable container is to be used. For info, 2.0.13+1-2 is in debian testing David. pgpjmlS3rvUKR.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
2016-11-23 15:52 GMT+01:00 Federico Bruni : > Il giorno mer 23 nov 2016 alle 15:10, Antonio Ospite ha > scritto: >> >> Ah I didn't know about lilydev (https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev). >> >> Updating it to Debian testing aka Stretch (the _next_ Debian stable >> release) will expose people to guile-2.0.13. >> >> Federico, AFAICT the current 4.1 works fine for guile-1.8 (FTR Debian >> stable has both 1.8.8 and 2.0.11, but lilydev only provides the former), >> maybe if you release a version based on Stretch use 5.0 as version >> number to make it easier to differentiate between the two. > > > I prefer waiting for the release of Stretch, then I'll use 5.0 as version > number, as you suggest. > Until then I'd rather use pinning for this package. > >> >> BTW for those who don't want to run a full virtual machine, a >> lightweight lilydev container can be created and launched with the >> attached script. > > > Nice, thanks > Currently it seems I'm the only one being able to test Antonio's patches. This is not exactly optimal. I 'm always running short of time, so I _only_ test, meaning I've not the time to think about "what's done", "why", "what are the consequences", etc. Sometimes I test even without having a look _what_ I'm testing :( I hope I can give him some feedback, but more people participating is surely preferable. Having a LilyDev with guile 2.0.12/13 may help. So, I pretty much desire a guile2.10.12/13-LilyDev Antonios container-script may help as well, but I think more people are familiar with our LilyDev already. Cheers, Harm ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
2016-11-23 9:23 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > > BTW the results are promising, with my latest patchset the UTF-8 > characters should be rendered fine. The images are not pixel perfect > because when using guile-2.0 the floating point numbers in the > postscript output are formatted slightly differently and that results > in different positioning of the symbols on the score, but I haven't > looked deeply into that. I finally finished a complete 'make doc' successfully. Up to now I didn't notice any serious issue The only minor thingy so far: /input/regression/utf-8.ly changed spacing/line.break Not related to the current guile2-problem, because it happens in the 2.19.51-docs as well: (1) The Japanese docs always display a Yen-sign instead of the backslash in the browser, although copying it into a utf-8-aware editor works well. See attached screenshot. Masamichi-San cc-ed. (2) /input/regression/keys.ly looks bad Cheers, Harm ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
On 11/23/2016 06:09 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: Currently it seems I'm the only one being able to test Antonio's patches. This is not exactly optimal. [...] Having a LilyDev with guile 2.0.12/13 may help. I for one would be more likely to help with testing if there were a LilyDev with guile 2.0.12/13 Thanks Antonio, Harm, David, Federico, et al, for your work on this. -Paul ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: guile-2.0 and debian
Hi list, I am watching the guile-2-threads grow and really do appreciate that! Many thanks to Antonio, Harm, David, Federico, et al for allyour efforts on this! There is a another question I have in mind: What would it mean to create LilyDev as a container-based-solution? On my laptop and my working machine I regularly use LXC to start Apache or Tomcat inside a container for testing purposes. And if I have to test something I often do that inside a container (https://www.stgraber.org/2014/01/17/lxc-1-0-unprivileged-containers/). Is there a script, which prepares an ubuntu installation for lilydev (beside apt-get build-dep lilypond) and gub? That way one can set up a container, run the setup-script (prob. with options to select either guile 1.8 or 2.0.12/13). The lilydev-solution is just an iso to download. But if you want to test with different guile-versions, you have to provide a vm for each one of them. Containers are much lighter and smaller and use less cpu and take the memory they need - not a fixed amount in the vm-settings. Summary: Which steps/tasks need to be performed by a setup script to prepare a ubuntu-based installation for lilypond-development and gub (using the local lilypond-sources)? I say ubuntu-based as lilydev is based on it. But other distributions might as well work. Jan-Peter Am 24.11.2016 um 07:02 schrieb Paul: On 11/23/2016 06:09 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: Currently it seems I'm the only one being able to test Antonio's patches. This is not exactly optimal. [...] Having a LilyDev with guile 2.0.12/13 may help. I for one would be more likely to help with testing if there were a LilyDev with guile 2.0.12/13 Thanks Antonio, Harm, David, Federico, et al, for your work on this. -Paul ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: guile-2.0 and debian
Hi Harm, I have been wanting to launch into assisting with the guile 2 stuff for a long time. Happy to help. If you can give me some quick pointers offline to the exact set up of the environment we are using for this, I will help out. I have _lots_ of time and a seriously fast machine. Andrew -Original Message- From: lilypond-devel [mailto:lilypond-devel-bounces+andrew.bernard=gmail@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morley Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:10 AM Currently it seems I'm the only one being able to test Antonio's patches. This is not exactly optimal. I 'm always running short of time, so I _only_ test, meaning I've not the time to think about "what's done", "why", "what are the consequences", etc. Sometimes I test even without having a look _what_ I'm testing :( I hope I can give him some feedback, but more people participating is surely preferable. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
