Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Hi Phil! Could you use send the script (or exact list of commands) you used to build the broken 2.19.82 release? Knut ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Thank you for your logs. If I understand correctly, the time when the intermediate PDF (missing fonts) exist is extremely short. e.g. `input/regression/lilypond-book/suffix-tely.pdf` in lilypond-doc.log L1186 : texi2pdf (intermeidate PDF suffix-tely.pdf is generated) L1187 : extr

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Am 27.06.2018 um 18:37 schrieb Phil Holmes: Ah ok, I wasn't aware that they were actual historic records.  Seems like a puzzler.  I'll take a look as well and see whether I have better luck inventing some theory of what may have transpired here.  Do we have an idea whether this is reproducible?

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

"David Kastrup" wrote in message news:878t705hzo@fencepost.gnu.org... "Phil Holmes" writes: news:87d0wc5lzt@fencepost.gnu.org... Knut Petersen writes: Would you show us the GUB's whole lilypond-doc log file? If you preserve the 2.19.81 (Jan. 2018) lilypond-doc log file, I'd like

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

"Phil Holmes" writes: > news:87d0wc5lzt@fencepost.gnu.org... Knut Petersen > writes: >> > Would you show us the GUB's whole lilypond-doc log file? > If you preserve the 2.19.81 (Jan. 2018) lilypond-doc log file, > I'd like to compare the 2.19.82 log file (broken PDFs) >

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

They are the only make doc logs on my GUB machine from the dates when I built 19.81 and 19.82, so they must be. -- Phil Holmes "David Kastrup" wrote in message news:87d0wc5lzt@fencepost.gnu.org... Knut Petersen writes: Would you show us the GUB's whole lilypond-doc log file? If you

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

The only reference to make doc in the logfile I produce as GUB output is: cd /home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-x86/build/lilypond-git.sv.gnu.org--lilypond.git-stable-2.20/ && make DOCUMENTATION=yes dist -- Phil Holmes "Knut Petersen" wrote in message news:b056a50c-cd65-b797-572d-fb99592

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Knut Petersen writes: >> >>> Would you show us the GUB's whole lilypond-doc log file? >>> If you preserve the 2.19.81 (Jan. 2018) lilypond-doc log file, >>> I'd like to compare the 2.19.82 log file (broken PDFs) >>> and the 2.19.81 log file (correct PDFs). >>> >> >> Zipped versions of both log fi

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Knut Petersen writes: > Am 27.06.2018 um 15:08 schrieb David Kastrup: >> As a reminder (possibly not relevant, but I thought I'd mention it): >> multi-job make will serialize the output from various jobs so there is >> the possibility of some things happening in parallel that look like >> happeni

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Would you show us the GUB's whole lilypond-doc log file? If you preserve the 2.19.81 (Jan. 2018) lilypond-doc log file, I'd like to compare the 2.19.82 log file (broken PDFs) and the 2.19.81 log file (correct PDFs). Zipped versions of both log files are attached.  Hope this helps. To me bot

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Am 27.06.2018 um 15:08 schrieb David Kastrup: As a reminder (possibly not relevant, but I thought I'd mention it): multi-job make will serialize the output from various jobs so there is the possibility of some things happening in parallel that look like happening after one another. The "seriali

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

"Phil Holmes" writes: > - Original Message - > From: "Masamichi Hosoda" > To: > >> >> If I understand correctly, >> at the end of `make doc`, >> Documentation/out-www/notation.pdf >> is copied to >> out-www/online-root/Documentation/notation.pdf >> and >> out-www/offline-root/Documenta

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

> - Original Message - > From: "Knut Petersen" > >> Yes. notation.pdf looks as if extractpdfmark/gs was not used. But the >> part of the build log Phil published clearly proves that >> extractpdfmark and ghostscript were used. > >> @Phil: If you have a look at the notation.pdf in the bu

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

- Original Message - From: "Knut Petersen" Yes. notation.pdf looks as if extractpdfmark/gs was not used. But the part of the build log Phil published clearly proves that extractpdfmark and ghostscript were used. @Phil: If you have a look at the notation.pdf in the build tree: is tha

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Am 26.06.2018 um 13:50 schrieb Masamichi Hosoda: Masamichi-san? Any idea? Knut Petersen writes: This problems seems to be related to https://codereview.appspot.com/314130043/ The file http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf seems to be  the intermediate version of notation

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

> > Masamichi-san? Any idea? > > Knut Petersen writes: > >> This problems seems to be related to >> https://codereview.appspot.com/314130043/ >> >> The file http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf seems to >> be  the intermediate version of notation.pdf. >> pdfinfo shows: >>

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Masamichi-san? Any idea? Knut Petersen writes: > This problems seems to be related to https://codereview.appspot.com/314130043/ > > The file http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf seems to be  > the intermediate version of notation.pdf. > pdfinfo shows: > >Creator: 

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

"Knut Petersen" wrote in message news:c0867765-18e7-9540-4843-a9f5470d7...@t-online.de... Hi everybody! The most interesting hint is that only the english version of notation*pdf in the broken GUB build is affected. *It would be very helpfull to know the answer to the following question:**

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

This problems seems to be related to https://codereview.appspot.com/314130043/ The file http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf seems to be  the intermediate version of notation.pdf. pdfinfo shows: Creator: XeTeX output 2018.06.24:1343 Producer:   xdvipdfmx (0

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Hi everybody! Back at home. Never had a look at GUB previously. git clone http://github.com/gperciva/gub cd gub make bootstrap fails after 2+ minutes with: building package: tools::make  *** Stage: download (make, tools)  *** Stage: untar (make, tools)  *** Stage: patch

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Aaron Hill writes: > On 2018-06-25 04:04, David Kastrup wrote: >> "James Lowe" writes: >>> If Aaron has specific examples (which doc, which page) then maybe I >>> can at least confirm this on master if that is going to help or not? >> >> But yes: specific examples would be good. > > No problem.

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

On 2018-06-25 04:04, David Kastrup wrote: "James Lowe" writes: If Aaron has specific examples (which doc, which page) then maybe I can at least confirm this on master if that is going to help or not? But yes: specific examples would be good. No problem. Notation Reference, Chapter 1: Music

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

"James Lowe" writes: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:50:51 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Aaron Hill writes: >> >> > With the release of 2.19.82, I pulled down the latest docs in PDF form >> > for reference. However, it appears nearly all of them have

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:50:51 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Aaron Hill writes: > > > With the release of 2.19.82, I pulled down the latest docs in PDF form > > for reference. However, it appears nearly all of them have notation > > with missing or incorrect fonts.

Re: PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

Aaron Hill writes: > With the release of 2.19.82, I pulled down the latest docs in PDF form > for reference. However, it appears nearly all of them have notation > with missing or incorrect fonts. The HTML versions seem fine and show > the notation snippets correctly. Ugh. Th

PDF docs for 2.19.82 broken/missing fonts

With the release of 2.19.82, I pulled down the latest docs in PDF form for reference. However, it appears nearly all of them have notation with missing or incorrect fonts. The HTML versions seem fine and show the notation snippets correctly. -- Aaron Hill

Re: What the docs say about \markuplist

don't understand markuplist and have only a hazy idea about what goes on behind the scenes re docs. But, prompted by James's reply, I started investigating a bit. Case A This 'regression' is due to issue 4894. Going from 2.18 to 2.19.80 - the backslashed section doesn&#

Re: What the docs say about \markuplist

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Robin Bannister wrote: > > Hallo, > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2017-12/msg00298.html > This user thread prompted me to look up \markuplist because > - I didn't recognise it > - from the example I couldn't guess what it was doing. > > It t

Re: What the docs say about markuplist

Mr Bannister On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:28:36 +0100, Robin Bannister wrote: > Hallo, > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2017-12/msg00298.html > This user thread prompted me to look up \markuplist because >- I didn't recognise it >- from the example I couldn't guess what it

Re: Better discoverability for thin-variant Aiken heads: add to snippets, docs, or features?

Hello Karl, On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:47:56 + Karlin High wrote: > Back in June, I was typing up some Aiken-heads music for a client. We > ran into a problem shown in the attached PNG and LY files, where > white-head notes end up too dark at lower staff sizes. The problem was > resolved by us

Re: Better discoverability for thin-variant Aiken heads: add to snippets, docs, or features?

On 9/8/17 12:47 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Karlin High" wrote: > >a snippet for the LSR, >a reference in the documentation, perhaps under NR 1.1.4 Shape note heads, >adding a feature to LilyPond, the command \aikenHeadsThin > >Any preference from the developers? I've read some of the contri

Better discoverability for thin-variant Aiken heads: add to snippets, docs, or features?

Back in June, I was typing up some Aiken-heads music for a client. We ran into a problem shown in the attached PNG and LY files, where white-head notes end up too dark at lower staff sizes. The problem was resolved by using thin-variant Aiken heads. However, arriving at that solution was a litt

Re: broken link in info docs

On 10.12.2016 10:42, Federico Bruni wrote: You didn't get any reply, did you? No, I didn't. I don't use Emacs so I cannot verify, but I've opened a new issue: https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5008/ Thanks for your report Federico Thanks for your reply! Sylvius _

Re: broken link in info docs

Il giorno dom 13 nov 2016 alle 18:10, Sylvius Pold ha scritto: Hi all, I'm new to this list and LilyPond. Thank you for this wonderful software! I have encountered a weird link in the info docs. I'm reading the info docs from within Emacs. When I type "d" to go to

broken link in info docs

Hi all, I'm new to this list and LilyPond. Thank you for this wonderful software! I have encountered a weird link in the info docs. I'm reading the info docs from within Emacs. When I type "d" to go to the Info Directory and click on the node/menu item "LilyPo

Re: CG 6.3 Debugging website and docs locally - why moving pictures/ directory?

Il giorno gio 24 mar 2016 alle 15:25, Federico Bruni ha scritto: Il giorno gio 24 mar 2016 alle 13:21, James ha scritto: This edit was added Oct 17 2010 by The Right Honorable Graham Percival .. so looking in dev at that time (when we didn't have a patch review process (and so it is very like

Re: CG 6.3 Debugging website and docs locally - why moving pictures/ directory?

Il giorno gio 24 mar 2016 alle 13:21, James ha scritto: This edit was added Oct 17 2010 by The Right Honorable Graham Percival .. so looking in dev at that time (when we didn't have a patch review process (and so it is very likely this was added the same time as any discussion that preceded it

Re: CG 6.3 Debugging website and docs locally - why moving pictures/ directory?

Federico, On 23/03/16 09:21, Federico Bruni wrote: Hi In this page of CG manual: http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/debugging-website-and-docs-locally the following command is suggested: mv $HOME/public_html/website/pictures $HOME/public_html/ I tested it and I

CG 6.3 Debugging website and docs locally - why moving pictures/ directory?

Hi In this page of CG manual: http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/debugging-website-and-docs-locally the following command is suggested: mv $HOME/public_html/website/pictures $HOME/public_html/ I tested it and I don't see what's the point of moving that dir

Re: Docs: inconsistency about ly:context-pushpop-property

Hello, On 19/10/15 03:07, Paul Morris wrote: >> On Oct 18, 2015, at 4:21 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> It does a "\temporary \override". Well spotted. > Thanks for clarifying that and for pointing out the other similar updates > that are needed. Improving the doc strings would definitely help

Re: Docs: inconsistency about ly:context-pushpop-property

> On Oct 18, 2015, at 4:21 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > > It does a "\temporary \override". Well spotted. Thanks for clarifying that and for pointing out the other similar updates that are needed. Improving the doc strings would definitely help matters. -Paul

Re: Docs: inconsistency about ly:context-pushpop-property

Paul Morris writes: > The docs appear to be inconsistent about ly:context-pushpop-property. > Does it do a \temporary \override or just an \override ? > > -Paul > > _ > > ly:context-pushpop-property > > do a \temporary \override or a \reve

Docs: inconsistency about ly:context-pushpop-property

The docs appear to be inconsistent about ly:context-pushpop-property. Does it do a \temporary \override or just an \override ? -Paul _ ly:context-pushpop-property do a \temporary \override or a \revert on a grob property http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation

Re: Update guile version dependency info in docs from "1.8.2 or newer" to "1.8.2"

On 17/12/14 19:23, Paul Morris wrote: > In the docs, update dependency info from guile “(1.8.2 or newer)” to just > “(1.8.2)” until guile 2.0 support is stable. As reported on the user list > here: > > http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Kubuntu-GCC-compile-with-guile-

Update guile version dependency info in docs from "1.8.2 or newer" to "1.8.2"

In the docs, update dependency info from guile “(1.8.2 or newer)” to just “(1.8.2)” until guile 2.0 support is stable. As reported on the user list here: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Kubuntu-GCC-compile-with-guile-2-td169498.html <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Kubuntu-

Re: Docs: "Line length" page and "line-width" property

2014-07-01 15:18 GMT+02:00 Paul Morris : > In the Notation Reference, this page[1] is called "Line length" but the > property that it covers (among others) is called "line-width." Seems like > it would be better if the title of the page was "Line width" for greater > consistency. > > [1] http://l

Docs: "Line length" page and "line-width" property

In the Notation Reference, this page[1] is called "Line length" but the property that it covers (among others) is called "line-width." Seems like it would be better if the title of the page was "Line width" for greater consistency. [1] http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/line-

Re: Docs: example for line-break-permission and page-break-permission

Hello, On 27/02/14 09:06, Trevor Daniels wrote: > Paul Morris wrote Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:44 PM > >> That means that this statement is potentially misleading: >> >> "Lily sometimes rejects explicit \break and \pageBreak commands. There are >> two commands to override this behavior:" > Well,

Re: Docs: example for line-break-permission and page-break-permission

Paul Morris wrote Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:44 PM > That means that this statement is potentially misleading: > > "Lily sometimes rejects explicit \break and \pageBreak commands. There are > two commands to override this behavior:" Well, Lily does sometimes reject explicit breaks, for exampl

Re: Docs: example for line-break-permission and page-break-permission

e this behavior:" If these commands prevent automatic breaks, then that is different from, and unrelated to, preventing rejecting explicit breaks. So I like James' suggestion for a more thorough explanation that would remove this ambiguity. Trevor Daniels wrote > Yes. I'd remo

Re: Docs: example for line-break-permission and page-break-permission

s? > > Trevor do you see what I mean? Yes. I'd remove the pagebreak from this example (since its effect is not clear in the docs anyway); use a smaller example showing a line break being inserted and being suppressed; and simply say page-break-permission works the same way. I'd al

Re: Docs: example for line-break-permission and page-break-permission

On 24/02/14 21:18, Paul Morris wrote: The example given here: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/explicit-breaks While not addressing your suggestion directly, but being one of the few doc editors I am not sure this part of the Notation Reference has been 'touched' for a whi

Docs: example for line-break-permission and page-break-permission

The example given here: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/explicit-breaks is not so good since the output is actually the same when you comment out the commands that it is intended to illustrate: % \override NonMusicalPaperColumn.line-break-permission = ##f % \override NonM

Re: docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

On 26/12/13 10:29, David Kastrup wrote: James writes: On 26/12/13 07:51, David Kastrup wrote: James writes: Anyway, it is useful I think to mention this somehow in the documenation, but apart from numerals what other characters would break LP's syntax in this specific regard? Words are fo

Re: docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

James writes: > On 26/12/13 07:51, David Kastrup wrote: >> James writes: >> >>> Anyway, it is useful I think to mention this somehow in the >>> documenation, but apart from numerals what other characters would >>> break LP's syntax in this specific regard? >> Words are formed by letters and non-

Re: docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

On 26/12/13 07:51, David Kastrup wrote: James writes: Anyway, it is useful I think to mention this somehow in the documenation, but apart from numerals what other characters would break LP's syntax in this specific regard? Words are formed by letters and non-ASCII characters, with single hyph

Re: docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

James writes: > Anyway, it is useful I think to mention this somehow in the > documenation, but apart from numerals what other characters would > break LP's syntax in this specific regard? Words are formed by letters and non-ASCII characters, with single hyphens or underlines allowed inside. So

Re: docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

ity. I'm happy to leave it in the capable hands of the dev team. ... On 20/12/13 16:53, David Kastrup wrote: Paul Morris writes: (Just curious... Is the idea to eventually make \tag violin1 work, and then update the docs at that point?) No. cis1 must remain split into cis and 1, and th

Re: docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

Paul Morris writes: > (Just curious... Is the idea to eventually make \tag violin1 work, and then > update the docs at that point?) No. cis1 must remain split into cis and 1, and the look for notenames is done once a word has been recognized. -- David K

Re: docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

corner and other things taking priority. I'm happy to leave it in the capable hands of the dev team. (Just curious... Is the idea to eventually make \tag violin1 work, and then update the docs at that point?) Thanks again for the explanation, -Paul -- View this message in context: http:

Re: docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

Paul Morris writes: > In 2.17 you no longer need to use #' with \tag, \removeWithTag, or > \keepWithTag. This is a helpful simplification but it is not yet > reflected in the docs.[1] For example: > > \tag #'aa % old way > \tag aa % new way > > Dot

docs: #' no longer needed with \tag, \removeWithTag, \keepWithTag

In 2.17 you no longer need to use #' with \tag, \removeWithTag, or \keepWithTag. This is a helpful simplification but it is not yet reflected in the docs.[1] For example: \tag #'aa % old way \tag aa % new way Dotted lists work too: Instead of: \removeWi

Re: Bagpipe docs

On 15 October 2013 13:48, Ralph Palmer wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Noeck wrote: > > > in this section of the manual (2.16 as well as 2.17): > > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/bagpipes > > the first mentioned advantage of bagpipe.ly is that \taor is short for >

Re: Bagpipe docs

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Noeck wrote: > in this section of the manual (2.16 as well as 2.17): > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/bagpipes > the first mentioned advantage of bagpipe.ly is that \taor is short for > \grace { \small G32[ d G e] } > > But this line is no val

Bagpipe docs

in this section of the manual (2.16 as well as 2.17): http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/bagpipes the first mentioned advantage of bagpipe.ly is that \taor is short for \grace { \small G32[ d G e] } But this line is no valid syntax without bagpipe.ly (due to the G). The meaning

Re: Broken x-refs in translated docs

Le 06/07/2013 19:48, Jean-Charles Malahieude disait : Le 06/07/2013 15:45, Phil Holmes disait : "Jean-Charles Malahieude" wrote... I'll try to narrow this large window (slowly because of my box's power) and let you know. If you have less of a restriction with download limits, http://download

Re: Broken x-refs in translated docs

Le 06/07/2013 15:45, Phil Holmes disait : "Jean-Charles Malahieude" wrote... I'll try to narrow this large window (slowly because of my box's power) and let you know. If you have less of a restriction with download limits, http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/documentation/ might

Re: Broken x-refs in translated docs

"Jean-Charles Malahieude" wrote in message news:51d81623.7080...@orange.fr... Le 01/07/2013 21:55, Phil Holmes disait : "Jean-Charles Malahieude" wrote... Most of the cross-references between manuals are broken in the translated documentation, split version. Do you think this is a new 2.17.

Re: Broken x-refs in translated docs

Le 01/07/2013 21:55, Phil Holmes disait : "Jean-Charles Malahieude" wrote... Most of the cross-references between manuals are broken in the translated documentation, split version. Do you think this is a new 2.17.21 problem, or has it been around a while? OK. Since I had a number of tarbal

Re: [translations] Broken x-refs in translated docs

2013/7/1 Jean-Charles Malahieude > For instance, in LM 2.1.2 Accidentals and key signatures in French > > from http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/**Documentation/learning/** > accidentals-and-key-**signatures.fr.html

Re: Broken x-refs in translated docs

2013/7/1 Phil Holmes > "Jean-Charles Malahieude" wrote in message > news:51D1C959.4010108@orange.**fr... > > Most of the cross-references between manuals are broken in the translated >> documentation, split version. >> > > > Do you think this is a new 2.17.21 problem, or has it been around a wh

Re: Broken x-refs in translated docs

"Jean-Charles Malahieude" wrote in message news:51d1c959.4010...@orange.fr... Most of the cross-references between manuals are broken in the translated documentation, split version. Do you think this is a new 2.17.21 problem, or has it been around a while? -- Phil Holmes Bug Squad _

Broken x-refs in translated docs

Most of the cross-references between manuals are broken in the translated documentation, split version. I'm not able to work on this, but here is what I've diagnosed: For instance, in LM 2.1.2 Accidentals and key signatures in French from http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/learning/

Re: Web/Docs: LilyPond version is not clear on docs web pages

Hello, 2013/5/8 Paul Morris > PROBLEM > > In the docs on the web it is not obvious, especially to new users, which > version of LilyPond any given page is for. This is particularly a problem > when landing on a doc page directly from a web search or link. > Thank you for th

Re: Web/Docs: LilyPond version is not clear on docs web pages

"Urs Liska" wrote in message news:1368083655.4115.1.ca...@pc-schlafzimmer.ursliska.homedns.org... Am Mittwoch, den 08.05.2013, 17:22 -0400 schrieb Paul Morris: On May 8, 2013, at 1:57 PM, James wrote: > There are probably more but these are the open ones that I quickly > found. I am sure thi

Re: Web/Docs: LilyPond version is not clear on docs web pages

Am Mittwoch, den 08.05.2013, 17:22 -0400 schrieb Paul Morris: > On May 8, 2013, at 1:57 PM, James wrote: > > > There are probably more but these are the open ones that I quickly found. I > > am sure this has been discussed and probably tracked elsewhere if not in > > one of these above. > > I

Re: Web/Docs: LilyPond version is not clear on docs web pages

On May 8, 2013, at 1:57 PM, James wrote: > There are probably more but these are the open ones that I quickly found. I > am sure this has been discussed and probably tracked elsewhere if not in one > of these above. I did not find this particular issue being tracked. I looked through those yo

Re: Web/Docs: LilyPond version is not clear on docs web pages

On 08/05/13 17:57, Paul Morris wrote: PROBLEM In the docs on the web it is not obvious, especially to new users, which version of LilyPond any given page is for. This is particularly a problem when landing on a doc page directly from a web search or link. For example, a new user does a web

Web/Docs: LilyPond version is not clear on docs web pages

PROBLEM In the docs on the web it is not obvious, especially to new users, which version of LilyPond any given page is for. This is particularly a problem when landing on a doc page directly from a web search or link. For example, a new user does a web search that takes them directly to an

Re: Banjo example in docs renders without stems on 2.16.2-1 OSX

Ah apologies, I must have found my way to the old documentation from Google. That's working as expected, thank you. -Bayard On 5/03/2013, at 1:10 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: > 2013/3/5 Bayard Randel : >>> I'm not top posting. >> >> % Stems should render based

Re: Banjo example in docs renders without stems on 2.16.2-1 OSX

2013/3/5 Bayard Randel : > Ah apologies, I must have found my way to the old documentation from Google. > That's working as expected, thank you. You're welcome. -Harm ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/lis

Re: Banjo example in docs renders without stems on 2.16.2-1 OSX

2013/3/5 Bayard Randel : >> I'm not top posting. > > % Stems should render based on example in docs, but do not on 2.16.2-1 in OSX. > % http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Banjo#Banjo > > \new TabStaff << > \set TabStaff.tablatureFormat =

Banjo example in docs renders without stems on 2.16.2-1 OSX

> I'm not top posting. % Stems should render based on example in docs, but do not on 2.16.2-1 in OSX. % http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Banjo#Banjo \new TabStaff << \set TabStaff.tablatureFormat = #fret-number-tablature-format-banjo \set TabStaff

Re: "legder" docs typo

On Jan 19, 2013, at 4:31 AM, James wrote: > This has been fixed and checked in. It'll appear when the next version of > Lilypond is built (2.17.11) the website gets built at the same time. James, Thanks for fixing this. Regards and HTH, -Paul ___ bug

Re: "legder" docs typo

Paul On 19 January 2013 02:33, Paul Morris wrote: > Caught a couple of typos here: > > > http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/modifying-single-staves > > Two corrections shown between ... > > Legder Ledger lines can also be made to appear inside the staff

"legder" docs typo

Caught a couple of typos here: http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/modifying-single-staves Two corrections shown between ... Legder Ledger lines can also be made to appear inside the staff where custom staff lines are required. The example shows the defa

Re: Search in 2.16 docs returns results for 2.15 docs

"Phil Holmes" wrote in message news:70A9E519788A49039FF52D59D8CBB491@Advent... Thanks for the report, Nick. Bug squad - please raise an issue to track this. -- Phil Holmes Done it myself as http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2845 since I've fixed this already in 2.17 -- P

Re: Search in 2.16 docs returns results for 2.15 docs

Thanks for the report, Nick. Bug squad - please raise an issue to track this. -- Phil Holmes - Original Message - From: Nick Payne To: lilypond-u...@gnu.org ; bug-lilypond@gnu.org Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 7:34 PM Subject: Search in 2.16 docs returns results for

Search in 2.16 docs returns results for 2.15 docs

Example: from page http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/index.html, enter Dynamics in the search box. On the search results page, I can see that the search command passed to Google is: site:lilypond.org/doc/v2.15 Dynamics and the results returned are from the 2.15 docs. Nick

Re: Some problems in the docs, as encountered by a beginner

Hello, 2012/9/4 Neil Sands > Hello > > I hope this is the right place to point out some errors in the LilyPond > Learning > Manual. I'm a beginner to LilyPond so I may have got the wrong end of the > stick > about some things. If so, please tell me! > > Thank you for the report, I have added it

Re: Some problems in the docs, as encountered by a beginner

ng the compilation process, and the score that > results (and the example score in the docs) both show an E natural followed > by > an E flat at that point. So I think the tilde symbol ~ for the tie is just > wrong > here. Yes, that looks like a typo. > 2. http://lilypond.or

Re: Issue 2410 in lilypond: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs

Comment #4 on issue 2410 by paconet@gmail.com: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2410 Ja = Corrected in lilypond/translation hopefully to be merged today

Re: Issue 2410 in lilypond: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs

Comment #3 on issue 2410 by pkx1...@gmail.com: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2410 Just an update as I am not sure when the translations were put in for which language as of 2.13.34's doc

Re: Issue 2410 in lilypond: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs

Comment #2 on issue 2410 by paconet@gmail.com: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2410 Fixed in Japanese. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org

Re: Issue 2399 in lilypond: website links to 2.13 docs for 'help us' points to a non-existent page

Updates: Status: Verified Comment #11 on issue 2399 by gra...@percival-music.ca: website links to 2.13 docs for 'help us' points to a non-existent page http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2399 website updat

Re: Issue 2410 in lilypond: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs

Comment #1 on issue 2410 by paconet@gmail.com: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2410 Fixed in French (by Jean-Charles) and in Spanish. ___ bug-lilypond

Issue 2410 in lilypond: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs

New issue 2410 by address@hidden: Doc: Translation NR 5.1.4 - Typo for engraver in Fr/Ja/Es and De docs http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2410 http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/modifying-context-plug_002dins First Paragraph. 'Key_signature_engraver&

Re: Issue 2399 in lilypond: website links to 2.13 docs for 'help us' points to a non-existent page

Updates: Labels: -Fixed_2_13_34 Fixed_2_15_34 Comment #10 on issue 2399 by julien.r...@gmail.com: website links to 2.13 docs for 'help us' points to a non-existent page http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2399 hehe thanks I hard-coded that one

Re: Issue 2399 in lilypond: website links to 2.13 docs for 'help us' points to a non-existent page

Comment #9 on issue 2399 by ma...@gregoriana.sk: website links to 2.13 docs for 'help us' points to a non-existent page http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2399 Typo? Fixed_2_13_34 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypo

Re: Issue 2399 in lilypond: website links to 2.13 docs for 'help us' points to a non-existent page

Updates: Status: Fixed Owner: julien.r...@gmail.com Labels: Fixed_2_13_34 Comment #8 on issue 2399 by julien.r...@gmail.com: website links to 2.13 docs for 'help us' points to a non-existent page http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2399

  1   2   3   4   >