I am working on a revamping the audio output portion of Lilypond, and
find myself in need of advice. The idea is to use a set of
translators (performers) to convert the music into a time-ordered
output-generic representation of the music, and to do the conversion
into the final output format (MIDI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> The second problem that must be solved at the Lilypond level has to do
> with safe mode. Apparently safe mode is presently "very safe", in fact
> so safe that some reasonable scheme tricks do not work--probably not all
> stuff in input/test will compile.
>
> It woul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > The second problem that must be solved at the Lilypond level has to do
> > with safe mode. Apparently safe mode is presently "very safe", in fact
> > so safe that some reasonable scheme tricks do not work--probably not all
> > stuff in input/test will compile.
> >
>
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> I needed the following files at least to generate ecrm1000:
Yes, I see. All added to -tiny.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
I needed the following files at least to generate ecrm1000:
ecrm.mf
exaccess.mf
exbase.mf
expseudo.mf
exroman.mf
However, it still put up some error, looking for ecruwest.mf
To eliminate errors I also had to install all fonts inputted in exroman.mf:
exaccent.mf
exbraces.mf
expunct.mf
exrdigit.mf
ex
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> I've done a test. Lilypond seems working with tetex-tiny, but there is
> still that ecrm1000 issue. I don't remember clearly what is the status
> of this problem .Will you include ecrm1000 in tetex-tiny?
No, ecrm1000 is generated. I did include ecrm.mf, but ecrm1000
incl
Hello,
I've done a test. Lilypond seems working with tetex-tiny, but there is
still that ecrm1000 issue. I don't remember clearly what is the status
of this problem .Will you include ecrm1000 in tetex-tiny?
Tomorrow I will try build 2.4CVS against tetex-2.0
Bert
kpathsea: Running mktextfm ecrm10
Sebastiano Vigna writes:
> The mistake you point out is a missing couple of quotes that wasn't
> there up to yesterday--my mistake. The entire site validates
> flawlessly--I'm pretty maniac about validation and formal specifications
> in general. For a comparison, lilypond.org's homepage has no DO
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:28 +0100, Erik Sandberg wrote:
> The reason for my remark was pure prejudice. The website looks a bit hi-tech,
> and it happens (too) often that hi-tech-looking pages use bad html. When
> someone reported that it didn't work, I just did a quick w3c check.
Well, no one e
