Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Eduardo Vieira wrote:
Hello friends,
I was testing the capabilities of conversion between ETF and LY.
Granted, I didn't expect any astounding result, for even the
documentation mentions that it has limited effectiveness, but I was
surprised with the deplorable resu
Eduardo Vieira wrote:
Hello friends,
I was testing the capabilities of conversion between ETF and LY.
Granted, I didn't expect any astounding result, for even the
documentation mentions that it has limited effectiveness, but I was
surprised with the deplorable result.:(
So much so, that I ca
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pedro Kröger) writes:
>
>>> This is very bad mojo and a violation of the GNU coding standards,
>>> which require that /usr/share is only for architecture independent
>>> files.
>>
>> really? I thought that /usr/local/share was fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pedro Kröger) writes:
>> This is very bad mojo and a violation of the GNU coding standards,
>> which require that /usr/share is only for architecture independent
>> files.
>
> really? I thought that /usr/local/share was for architecture independent
> files:
>
> "The root of the
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lilypond installs a shared library in /usr/share, to wit:
[snip]
> This is very bad mojo and a violation of the GNU coding standards,
> which require that /usr/share is only for architecture independent
> files.
really? I thought that /usr/local
Lilypond installs a shared library in /usr/share, to wit:
/usr/share/lilypond/2.6.3/python/midi.so
(2.6.4 has the same problem.)
This is very bad mojo and a violation of the GNU coding standards,
which require that /usr/share is only for architecture independent
files.
Thomas
___
Hello list,
I have packaged LilyPond 2.6.4 for Ubuntu breezy. It works fine on my
computer, but I guess it's a good idea if other Ubuntu users test the
package.
Just add the following line in the /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://pocentek.perso.cegetel.net/ubuntu breezy lilypond
and run:
