Hi,
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, John Mandereau wrote:
> On 2008/07/18 08:48 -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > Also, it would be nice if some of these perverse hackers could just
> > add an autoconf check for said program.
>
> I added a check for t1asm, but I didn't add a check for a particular
> ver
[sorry for the prematurate posting]
On 2008/07/18 09:38 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > I like hacking makefiles, so that's not a problem :-).
>
> You are perverse :-)
It's funny for a math student to imagine what graphs make may build when
reading makefiles.
However, I'm still puzzled with web
On 2008/07/18 09:38 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > I like hacking makefiles, so that's not a problem :-).
>
> You are perverse :-)
It's funny for a math student to imagine what graphs make may build when
reading makefiles. However, I'm still puzzled with web-clean target: in
input/lsr and
On 2008/07/18 08:48 -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Also, it would be nice if some of these perverse hackers could just
> add an autoconf check for said program.
I added a check for t1asm, but I didn't add a check for a particular
version, I leave this up to fonts experts.
Best,
John
On 2008/07/18 17:07 +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
> > Also, it would be nice if some of these perverse hackers could just
> > add an autoconf check for said program.
>
> Hmm, something like [1] (s/inkscape/t1asm/) ?
Ah, many thanks for the hint, I didn't know how to write an autoconf
check, and am cu
> It's a bit of a halfbaked solution. If you don't want to compile lily,
> why not use the pre-rolled binary.
>
> Also, it would be nice if some of these perverse hackers could just
> add an autoconf check for said program.
Hmm, something like [1] (s/inkscape/t1asm/) ?
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/a
Hi,
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Also, it would be nice if some of these perverse hackers could just add
> an autoconf check for said program.
Heh, I am a bit short on time. But sure, I'll try to come up with a patch
this afternoon.
BTW installing LilyPond with "checkinstal
Hi,
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > FWIW I also like the idea of having less dependencies, but not at the
> > price of being unable to hack the source. Even if that is the source
> > to a font.
>
> Well, adding pre-compiled fonts to the tarball just remove a dependency.
> As
It's a bit of a halfbaked solution. If you don't want to compile lily,
why not use the pre-rolled binary.
Also, it would be nice if some of these perverse hackers could just
add an autoconf check for said program.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> FWI
> FWIW I also like the idea of having less dependencies, but not at
> the price of being unable to hack the source. Even if that is the
> source to a font.
Well, adding pre-compiled fonts to the tarball just remove a
dependency. As soon as you remove the fonts, they are rebuilt.
Where's the pro
Hi,
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > >> I can only repeat that IMHO it would be best to distribute the final
> > >> fonts to reduce the dependencies.
> > >
> > > Let's do this if there is no objection.
> >
> > I oppose to this idea.
>
> Why?
FWIW I also like the idea of having les
> >> I can only repeat that IMHO it would be best to distribute the final
> >> fonts to reduce the dependencies.
> >
> > Let's do this if there is no objection.
>
> I oppose to this idea.
Why?
> I would rather completely stop distributing tarballs. Git clone is a
> more efficient way of distribut
> I like hacking makefiles, so that's not a problem :-).
You are perverse :-)
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:30 PM, John Mandereau
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/07/15 23:00 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> I can only repeat that IMHO it would be best to distribute the final
>> fonts to reduce the dependencies.
>
> Let's do this if there is no objection. This certainly invo
On 2008/07/15 11:16 -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Graham Breed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello all!
> >
> > I've just built 2.11.52. I needed t1asm, which on Ubuntu comes in a package
> > called t1utils. There's no mention of it in the installation instruct
On 2008/07/15 23:00 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > I've just built 2.11.52. I needed t1asm, [...]
> >
> > In fact the build also requires programs related to Metafont
> > (mf-nowin and metapost, I believe).
>
> Only metapost.
>
> I can only repeat that IMHO it would be best to distribute the
2008/7/15 Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I can only repeat that IMHO it would be best to distribute the final
> fonts to reduce the dependencies.
"Reduce the dependences", this sounds like { music } to my ears.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
http://www.paconet.org
__
> > I've just built 2.11.52. I needed t1asm, [...]
>
> In fact the build also requires programs related to Metafont
> (mf-nowin and metapost, I believe).
Only metapost.
I can only repeat that IMHO it would be best to distribute the final
fonts to reduce the dependencies.
Werner
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Graham Breed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I've just built 2.11.52. I needed t1asm, which on Ubuntu comes in a package
> called t1utils. There's no mention of it in the installation instructions.
> At least, I didn't notice it, and I'm sure somebody
Hello all!
I've just built 2.11.52. I needed t1asm, which on Ubuntu
comes in a package called t1utils. There's no mention of it
in the installation instructions. At least, I didn't notice
it, and I'm sure somebody else'll miss it as well. Also, I
had to scroll a long way up to find the me
20 matches
Mail list logo
