grand copyright replacement

I'm going to run `scripts/build/grand-replace' to update all copyright years. However, my test run shows that there are a bunch of files that aren't covered, for example `lily/part-combine-part-iterator.cc', which has the following copyright notice: Copyright (C) 2015 Daniel Eble Shall this

Re: guilev1/2 musing

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:10 PM Thomas Morley wrote: > I'd like to adress this question from my own point of view. > > I think we have only two possibilities: migrate to guilev2 or fork guilev1 > > Actually some distros provide lilypond with guilev2 already, applying > patches from the 'guile-v2-w

Re: guilev1/2 musing

Am Do., 24. Jan. 2019 um 22:47 Uhr schrieb Karlin High : > Work has been done towards having LilyPond able to use Guile2. Any > comments on the value of continuing those efforts? Hi Karlin, I'd like to adress this question from my own point of view. I think we have only two possibilities: migra

Re: guilev1/2 musing

On 1/24/2019 5:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: the 1.8 branch already broke with Texinfo developments, possibly also gcc (don't remember) and Thien Thi Nguyen (I think) pushed a few fixes for that. Just for reference, perhaps it was this thread.

Re: guilev1/2 musing

Karlin High writes: > On 1/24/2019 5:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> the 1.8 branch already broke >> with Texinfo developments, possibly also gcc (don't remember) and Thien >> Thi Nguyen (I think) pushed a few fixes for that. > > Just for reference, perhaps it was this thread. >

Re: guilev1/2 musing

Valentin Villenave writes: > On an unrelated subject, am I the only one puzzled by the fact that, > although the global situation with Guile 2.0 was a mess, still they > went ahead and released new major versions, a.k.a. 2.2 and 2.4? Or is > it a year-based release cycle where the numbers don’t m

Re: guilev1/2 musing

Valentin Villenave writes: > On 1/24/19, David Kastrup wrote: >> Development happens on Guile2, none on Guile1. > > That’s what I’m worried about: if we *were* to include guile1 as a git > submodule (effectively forking it, although I don’t imagine many Lily > devs are gonna be fiddling with its

Re: guilev1/2 musing

On 1/24/19, David Kastrup wrote: > Development happens on Guile2, none on Guile1. That’s what I’m worried about: if we *were* to include guile1 as a git submodule (effectively forking it, although I don’t imagine many Lily devs are gonna be fiddling with its codebase), what are the sustainability

Re: guilev1/2 musing

Karlin High writes: > On 1/24/2019 2:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Thomas Morley writes: >>> In other posts you wrote about the possibility we could fork guilev1. >>> Do you see any way to implement full Unicode support in such a fork of >>> our own and in a saner way than current guilev2? > >>

Re: guilev1/2 musing

On 1/24/2019 2:29 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Thomas Morley writes: In other posts you wrote about the possibility we could fork guilev1. Do you see any way to implement full Unicode support in such a fork of our own and in a saner way than current guilev2? If we had that amount of manpower, th

Re: Doc: add markup objects overview (issue 357930043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

Thanks a lot Werner! You caught quite a few things I should have dealt with more rigorously. https://codereview.appspot.com/357930043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/text.itely File Documentation/notation/text.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/357930043/diff/20001/Documentation/n

Re: guilev1/2 musing

Thomas Morley writes: > In other posts you wrote about the possibility we could fork guilev1. > Do you see any way to implement full Unicode support in such a fork of > our own and in a saner way than current guilev2? If we had that amount of manpower, that work would likely be better implemente

guilev1/2 musing

Hi David, this refers to http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2019-01/msg00169.html but I thought to better open a new thread for this topic. All thoughts are from a LilyPond guile-users point of view... You wrote: "Guile-2.0 fully supports Unicode. Which is sort of the problem." If

PATCHES - Countdown for January 24th

Hello, Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on the January 26th (as I forgot to send this email yesterday). A quick synopsis of all patches currently in the review process can be found here: http://philholmes.net/lilypond/allura/ Push: 5251 document rest

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

Valentin Villenave writes: > On 1/24/19, David Kastrup wrote: >> texi2html(?) does have specific version requirements > > Yes, I meant texi2html! We’re in a bind similar to that of Guile: the > old unmaintained version works and not the new one. (Well, minus the > outrageous > let’s-drop-non-AS

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

Hello, 2019-01-24 15:37 GMT+00:00 David Kastrup: > Valentin Villenave writes: > >> On 1/24/19, Knut Petersen wrote: >>> There's the possibility to uses git submodules ... guile, ghostscript and >>> extractpdfmark are primary candidates. >> >> Not to mention the specific Texinfo version we rely

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

On 1/24/19, David Kastrup wrote: > texi2html(?) does have specific version requirements Yes, I meant texi2html! We’re in a bind similar to that of Guile: the old unmaintained version works and not the new one. (Well, minus the outrageous let’s-drop-non-ASCII-strings-support-because-frankly-who-ne

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

Valentin Villenave writes: > On 1/24/19, Knut Petersen wrote: >> There's the possibility to uses git submodules ... guile, ghostscript and >> extractpdfmark are primary candidates. > > Not to mention the specific Texinfo version we rely on. texinfo.tex and supplementary files are already part o

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

On 1/24/19, Knut Petersen wrote: > There's the possibility to uses git submodules ... guile, ghostscript and > extractpdfmark are primary candidates. Not to mention the specific Texinfo version we rely on. V. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-d

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

Masamichi Hosoda writes: This is a gs 9.26 issue and I cannot see how this might be related to what we have hit here, so maybe Hosoda-san will be abel to figure why make check is breaking without extractpdfmark installed. >>> >>> If I understand correctly, this patch solves the e

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

>>> This is a gs 9.26 issue and I cannot see how this might be related to what >>> we have hit here, so maybe Hosoda-san will be abel to figure why make check >>> is breaking without extractpdfmark installed. >> >> If I understand correctly, this patch solves the error. >> >> ``` >> --- a/scripts

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

Knut Petersen writes: > Great. I can reproduce the problem. > > After that I created branch stabletest. stabletest is stable/2.20 with 3 > additional commits cherry-picked commits from master: > >commit 2c7277e0014b8d1d22ef5a1caa69a2f86bcfb964 >commit 430fcf895a49d8159413f194488b8474d4ae

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

On 24.01.19 14:04, David Kastrup wrote: Masamichi Hosoda writes: This is a gs 9.26 issue and I cannot see how this might be related to what we have hit here, so maybe Hosoda-san will be abel to figure why make check is breaking without extractpdfmark installed. If I understand correctly, th

Re: gub: Build lilypond from local repositories

Hello Knut, From: Knut Petersen Time:2019-01-24 11:30 To: James Lowe Cc:lilypond-devel gub: Build lilypond from local repositories Hi James! I'm trying to use gub to build local branches of lilypond. In gub's lilypond.make there is LILYPOND_REPO_URL. Did something like this: make

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

Masamichi Hosoda writes: >> This is a gs 9.26 issue and I cannot see how this might be related to what >> we have hit here, so maybe Hosoda-san will be abel to figure why make check >> is breaking without extractpdfmark installed. > > If I understand correctly, this patch solves the error. > >

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

> This is a gs 9.26 issue and I cannot see how this might be related to what we > have hit here, so maybe Hosoda-san will be abel to figure why make check is > breaking without extractpdfmark installed. If I understand correctly, this patch solves the error. ``` --- a/scripts/build/output-dista

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

On 1/24/2019 5:44 AM, Knut Petersen wrote: It would be much easier and faster to set up a lilypond build environment if the tools that are really needed would be submodules I see. So ideally, people could be starting from scratch, and doing "git clone --recurse-submodules" would bring in every

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

On 24.01.19 12:21, Karlin High wrote: On 1/24/2019 4:57 AM, Knut Petersen wrote: Problem is that we don't have conditional prerequisites of the "install this if you want to compile that" kind. There's the possibility to uses git submodules ... guile, ghostscript and extractpdfmark are primary

gub: Build lilypond from local repositories

Hi James! I'm trying to use gub to build local branches of lilypond. In gub's lilypond.make there is LILYPOND_REPO_URL. Did something like this: make LILYPOND_REPO_URL=file:///home/knut/sources/lilypond LILYPOND_BRANCH=MyPrivateBranch lilypond ever work? At least on my system the command a

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

On 1/24/2019 4:57 AM, Knut Petersen wrote: Problem is that we don't have conditional prerequisites of the "install this if you want to compile that" kind. There's the possibility to uses git submodules ... guile, ghostscript and extractpdfmark are primary candidates. Git Submodules... this? <

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

On 24.01.19 11:26, David Kastrup wrote: Therefore I think requiring extractpdfmark just to build LP binary is a bit overkill. Problem is that we don't have conditional prerequisites of the "install this if you want to compile that" kind. There's the possibility to uses git submodules ... gui

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

"James Lowe" writes: > No one really builds the doc apart from me (test patches) Phil > (website) and maybe a few hardcore LP users. I build it regularly, mainly because the HTML documentation can't hold a candle to the usability of the Info documentation and I need it. It was one of the reason

Re: I cannot run make check since Issue 5450: relocate.cc: Introduce new command `set?'

Hello, 2019-01-23 23:22 GMT+00:00 Knut Petersen: > On 23.01.19 22:50, Thomas Morley wrote: >> While I agree it has nothing to do with the current problem, it may be >> an argument against _requirement_ of extractpdfmark >> Though, I'm not familiar with this stuff, I may be wrong. > > extractpdfm