Rune Zedeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A bug report? Why? How should the config file look?
> Well, nevertheless, I don't think that there's much point in reporting
> bugs against redhat 7.1 anymore... (After 7.2 and all...)
Ah ok. I just thought, xdvi300dpi vs 600dpi. Hmm, why are you
inst
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> Thank you for asking. All musicians who play guitar do agree
>
> with me.
No.
-Rune
___
Lilypond-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>>Just change the pixelsPerInch setting to 600.
>>Takker!
> Shouldn't that warrant a bug report to Red Hat?
A bug report? Why? How should the config file look?
Well, nevertheless, I don't think that there's much point in reporting
bugs against redhat 7.1 anymore... (
Rune Zedeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think the problem is that your xdvi is configured to use
>> 300dpi fonts, whereas dvips and the Lilypond make files use 600dpi
>> fonts. You could change this yourself in the file
>> .../texmf/xdvi/Xdvi
>> Just change the pixelsPerInch setting to 600.
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> I think the problem is that your xdvi is configured to use
> 300dpi fonts, whereas dvips and the Lilypond make files
> use 600dpi fonts. You could change this yourself in the file
> .../texmf/xdvi/Xdvi
> Just change the pixelsPerInch setting to 600.
Takker!
-Rune
> Got lily up and running on my laptop! :-)))
> One small problem though: When xdvi'ing a file processed with ly2dvi I
> get a checksum mismatch for each feta-file:
>
> Checksum mismatch (dvi = 650806374, pk = 616750918) in font file
> /var/lib/texmf/pk/cx/feta20.300pk
> Checksum mismatch (dvi
Got lily up and running on my laptop! :-)))
One small problem though: When xdvi'ing a file processed with ly2dvi I
get a checksum mismatch for each feta-file:
Checksum mismatch (dvi = 650806374, pk = 616750918) in font file
/var/lib/texmf/pk/cx/feta20.300pk
Checksum mismatch (dvi = 399002775, p
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> Wouldn't it be simpler to consider each line of tab to be a staff of a
> single line?
No.
Problems would include: Positioning of clef, positioning of bar lines
(repeat dots in particular), and then all those poor users who don't
agree with you that the tab should
Chris Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:25:57PM +0200, Rune Zedeler wrote:
>
>>Chris Jackson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What's happening with rests at the moment? r4 currently gives
>>>an r8, and r8 gives a classical r4 (a reflected r8).
>>>
>>You haven't uninstalled the old fonts correctly. Re
Rune Zedeler wrote:
> Kamil Kisiel wrote:
>
>
>>notation program when I came across the lilypond project. I am wondering
>>if there are any plans to include guitar-tab functionality to lilypond,
>>
>
> Well, yes, plans, yes... Lots of plans... Only plans, though.
> I have been working on this
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 11:39:32AM +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > 2) Grace-output broken: \grace a8 ~ a2 \grace a8 ~ a2
> >
> > Expected : a8( )a2 a8( )a2
> > BUG-here : a8( )a2( a8 )a2
>
> Agreed, but what the heck does it it mean to tie grace notes? I don't
> th
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> 2) Grace-output broken: \grace a8 ~ a2 \grace a8 ~ a2
>>
>> Expected : a8( )a2 a8( )a2
>> BUG-here : a8( )a2( a8 )a2
>
>
> Agreed, but what the heck does it it mean to tie grace notes? I don't
> think I've ever seen it.
It is quite common to tie a grace note to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 2) Grace-output broken: \grace a8 ~ a2 \grace a8 ~ a2
>
> Expected : a8( )a2 a8( )a2
> BUG-here : a8( )a2( a8 )a2
Agreed, but what the heck does it it mean to tie grace notes? I don't
think I've ever seen it.
> 4) As a first thing in the following, tie is broken both
13 matches
Mail list logo
