On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Valentin Villenave
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
>> Should we add a new issue on the issue tracker regarding this issue?
>
> You tell me :-)
Well then, I think we should open a new issue. :-)
Thanks,
Patrick
___
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> Should we add a new issue on the issue tracker regarding this issue?
You tell me :-)
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listi
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/11/25 Francisco Vila :
>
>> My imagemagick 6.3.7 does not accept this option
>
> Neither does mine:
>
> n...@cherry:~$ compare -version
> Version: ImageMagick 6.5.1-0 2009-08-27 Q16 OpenMP http://www.imagemagick.org
>
> n...@cherry:~$ com
2009/11/25 David Kastrup :
> I have my doubts -j2 is concerned with the patch other than accidently.
I can only run make check successfully without it (though the results
aren't a pretty sight due to the large number of profile changes).
> Our results are so different that I have my suspicion th
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:33:50PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 19:17 +, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > Could you check this stuff, maybe translate one sentence on half a
> > dozen nodes inside Documentation/fr/web/*.itexi for testing, etc
> > etc ?
>
> Jan alrea
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:02:37PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le mardi 24 novembre 2009 à 21:20 +, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > On the 16th, I gave up and fixed this one myself. However, I
> > discovered that I couldn't copy files from srcdir into the blddir
> > without changing their nam
2009/11/25 Francisco Vila :
> My imagemagick 6.3.7 does not accept this option
Neither does mine:
n...@cherry:~$ compare -version
Version: ImageMagick 6.5.1-0 2009-08-27 Q16 OpenMP http://www.imagemagick.org
n...@cherry:~$ compare -dissimilarity-threshold 1 a.png b.png diff.png
compare: unrecog
2009/11/25 Francisco Vila :
> cc only is 81.000+
Here is a more extensive line count.
http://www.paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/lines.pdf
http://www.paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/lines.tex
LilyPond source code, by language
Total 518.687
Data from Nov 24, 2009
--
Paco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
ww
As you may be aware by now, using the GPL v2 is becoming somewhat
problematic.
In order to fix future compatibility problems, GNU packages' policy
defiance and general confusion, we have just bumped the license to
GPL v3+ in master.
The license bump patches are all signed-off by
Han-Wen Ni
Le 24 nov. 2009 à 17:51, d...@gnu.org a écrit :
> It would make sense to apply http://codereview.appspot.com/160048>
> first and make this patch work on top of that.
>
> There may be cases where a separate property-bind like this is useful in
> called routines, and the markup commands from the me
2009/11/25 Patrick McCarty :
> Hi,
>
> For the past few months, I have been experiencing strange failures
> when checking the regression test suite, and I have just discovered
> why.
>
> I recently posted to the ImageMagick forums:
>
> http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?f=1&
Graham Percival writes:
> I think a better solution would be to add a warning to the configure
> script if texi2html is greater than 1.82. I don't know if autoconf
> can check if a version number is too high, though. For that matter, I
> don't even know how to write a normal "is it high enough"
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:51:44PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:08:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=775
> >
> >> You don't even need to trap this error in high language, but can just d
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Undocumented code is not maintainable. Throwing it out is a matter of
>> sanity if it can't get documented, and it apparently can't. It
>> apparently can't even get questioned or discussed.
>
> We cannot throw
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Undocumented code is not maintainable. Throwing it out is a matter of
> sanity if it can't get documented, and it apparently can't. It
> apparently can't even get questioned or discussed.
We cannot throw out code if that makes LilyPond st
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:19 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I have my doubts that Lilypond can develop into a sustainable project
>> from the current state of core mind and code. Projects like the frogs
>> are nice for recruiting people, but if they are locked out of e
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:19 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> I have my doubts that Lilypond can develop into a sustainable project
> from the current state of core mind and code. Projects like the frogs
> are nice for recruiting people, but if they are locked out of engagedly
> working with parts of
I think you mean makeinfo, here. LilyPond has about 10 lines of code.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2009/11/25 John Mandereau :
>> As Texi2HTML weighs 500 KB (more than 22000 lines of code, which is
>> roughly as much as Makeinfo in C!!!), so it's been decided not
2009/11/25 Jan Nieuwenhuizen :
> Op woensdag 25-11-2009 om 13:25 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Francisco
> Vila:
>> 2009/11/25 John Mandereau :
>> > As Texi2HTML weighs 500 KB (more than 22000 lines of code, which is
>> > roughly as much as Makeinfo in C!!!), so it's been decided not to
>> > includ
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:08:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am talking about "make test" here. I think that catching this error
>> and producing "
>> Texi2HTML call failed, maybe because of a mismatch in required
>> versions. If you don't need HTML, try the mak
Op woensdag 25-11-2009 om 13:25 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Francisco
Vila:
> 2009/11/25 John Mandereau :
> > As Texi2HTML weighs 500 KB (more than 22000 lines of code, which is
> > roughly as much as Makeinfo in C!!!), so it's been decided not to
> > include it.
>
> LilyPond has less than 14000
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:08:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> I am talking about "make test" here. I think that catching this error
> and producing "
> Texi2HTML call failed, maybe because of a mismatch in required
> versions. If you don't need HTML, try the makefile target doc-stage-1
> if ma
2009/11/25 John Mandereau :
> As Texi2HTML weighs 500 KB (more than 22000 lines of code, which is
> roughly as much as Makeinfo in C!!!), so it's been decided not to
> include it.
LilyPond has less than 14000 lines of code, not counting the documentation.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.pa
John Mandereau writes:
> Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009 à 11:41 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
[...]
>> Or any configure or error messages or error catching that will give a
>> useful information linking this failure of the test suite with the
>> Texi2HTML version?
[...]
> Your suggestions are
Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009 à 11:41 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
> When the code requires meddling with the internals of Texi2HTML, like I
> understood Reinhold, it is in some parts linked to the particular
> version. In this case it makes sense to distribute the required version
> alongside si
John Mandereau writes:
> Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009 à 10:48 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> Sounds like a dependency impacting developers rather severely.
>
> Are you joking?
I do not know the matter enough to tell funny from serious suggestions.
And "Sounds like..." is a statement how it ap
Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009 à 10:48 +0100, David Kastrup a écrit :
> Sounds like a dependency impacting developers rather severely.
Are you joking? Is requiring an officially released version and not
supporting a version from CVS excessive? We have no control on
Texi2HTML development, and in pa
Neil Puttock writes:
> 2009/11/24 David Kastrup :
>
>> After applying http://codereview.appspot.com/160048> first,
>> indeed the following diff that throws out all the toplevel scoping
>> constructs and separate definitions of define-markup-command and
>> define-markup-list-command passes the reg
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 10:02:55 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> It would have helped if the code I threw out had contained any
>> comments as to what problem it tried to fix, and what symptoms were
>> involved.
>
> Yes, that's also my main problem: The code does not
Am Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 10:02:55 schrieb David Kastrup:
> It would have helped if the code I threw out had contained any comments
> as to what problem it tried to fix, and what symptoms were involved.
Yes, that's also my main problem: The code does not contain any comments, so
it's really
David Kastrup writes:
> Neil Puttock writes:
>
>> 2009/11/24 David Kastrup :
>>
>>> After applying http://codereview.appspot.com/160048> first,
>>> indeed the following diff that throws out all the toplevel scoping
>>> constructs and separate definitions of define-markup-command and
>>> define-m
31 matches
Mail list logo
