Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So I can produce (blurry) png images, but eps output produces files
that gs can't read and oowriter can't do anything with. gs simply
displays empty pages, and oowriter includes just boxes of the proper
size that say "Creator:LilyPond". No actual music.
gv's display
So I can produce (blurry) png images, but eps output produces files
that gs can't read and oowriter can't do anything with. gs simply
displays empty pages, and oowriter includes just boxes of the proper
size that say "Creator:LilyPond". No actual music.
gv's display is different: for the -1.eps
Hello all,
i compiled lilypond-2.7.13.
(the version does not matter!).
I read in the INSTALL.txt:
The most time-consuming part of compiling LilyPond is tracing the
Type1 fonts. You can shortcut this operation by issuing one of the
following commands
make -C mf get-p
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> then again, who actually uses these recipes?
Now I remember, we used to have debian repackagers of development
releases for debian stable and debian unstable.
Anyway, what I'd really like to do is to build debs of any software
that I need which is not in Debian (mostly
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What tex intricacies did you use? Integration with [la]tex documents
> is still supported, but using .eps snippets now.
Not many. I've never been a power lilypond user, and my needs would
be quite satisfied with .eps. I didn't much integrate it w
Thomas Bushnell writes:
>>> You say that the TeX backend is no longer supported (!). Why is this?
>> Supporting tex output is a lot of work, and it probably has just one user.
> I used to use it a lot. Ah well. :)
What tex intricacies did you use? Integration with [la]tex documents
is still
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> Perhaps it's better to put them into a separate "packaging" CVS repo.
Yes, let's just [re]move them all. The mingw/cygwin stuff is already
in the installer repo.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Ok; they were once used for processing the texinfo docs, right?
>
> They are still used for producing the PDF documentatation, so there is
> still a build dependency on tetex. Also, tetex is great for making
> documents with lilypond snippets, but
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, it's a dangerous thing. Among other things, their version
>> numbers might collide badly with the official Debian ones. Best it
>> should have different package names to prevent this sort of thing from
>> happening.
>
> Whe have this on our
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Well, it's a dangerous thing. Among other things, their version
numbers might collide badly with the official Debian ones. Best it
should have different package names to prevent this sort of thing from
happening.
Whe have this on our website, I think that Anthoy Fok
Thomas Bushnell writes:
> addition, dropping TeX from the build dependencies will make many
> people happy.
oops, but tetex is still a build dependency for the docs. Just not an
installation dependency for the built package.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The m
Thomas Bushnell writes:
> Ok; they were once used for processing the texinfo docs, right?
They are still used for producing the PDF documentatation, so there is
still a build dependency on tetex. Also, tetex is great for making
documents with lilypond snippets, but this does not make tetex a
dep
Thomas Bushnell writes:
>>> I'm glad that finally Debian users
>> Thanks! Yes, that's great. And don't forget the Ubuntu users.
>
> Well, I can't support everyone. Ubuntu can copy Debian
That's what I meant, Ubuntu does copy Debian's LilyPond, so in effect
>, but I can't simultaneously handl
13 matches
Mail list logo
