2007/11/25, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is this correct?
> INSTDIR/lilypond/usr/bin/convert-ly:
>
> #!/home/lilydev/vc/gub-serialize/target/tools/root/usr/bin/python
it's a cosmetic issue; since the script is invoked through the
wrappers in INSTDIR/bin/ it should not make a difference.
2007/11/25, John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> There is no python in /usr/local/lilypond/usr/bin, although there are
> lots of libs in /usr/local/lilypond/usr/lib/python2.4.
thanks. For some reason, lilypond only depended on python-runtime, but
not on python.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL P
John Mandereau wrote:
Le samedi 24 novembre 2007 à 21:49 -0800, Graham Percival a écrit :
Is this correct?
INSTDIR/lilypond/usr/bin/convert-ly:
#!/home/lilydev/vc/gub-serialize/target/tools/root/usr/bin/python
Actually, I can't run convert-ly with 2.11.35-2 linux-x86 GUB package:
Yeah, that
Le samedi 24 novembre 2007 à 21:49 -0800, Graham Percival a écrit :
> Is this correct?
> INSTDIR/lilypond/usr/bin/convert-ly:
>
> #!/home/lilydev/vc/gub-serialize/target/tools/root/usr/bin/python
>
>
> Found in 2.11.35-2 linux-x86.
Actually, I can't run convert-ly with 2.11.35-2 linux-x86 GUB
Is this correct?
INSTDIR/lilypond/usr/bin/convert-ly:
#!/home/lilydev/vc/gub-serialize/target/tools/root/usr/bin/python
Found in 2.11.35-2 linux-x86.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailm
My experience is that the native Python installation has always worked
better
than the python bundled with LilyPond, so for that reason I don't see
any problems
to move lilypond to the end of the PATH. However, I'm more worried about
Ghostscript dependencies, especially if the user happens to ha
Jan Nieuwenhuizen escreveu:
The question is: how much do we want to make sure that lilypond just
works after installation, and how much do we want to break someone's
python preference?
The breakage would occur with people that have python installed
themselves; I think it's safe to assume that
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also, I wonder what would make the Lilypond version "wobbly".
>
> We cross-compile Python on a linux box, using the MinGW GCC
> compiler. All sorts of things tend to go wrong when creating when
> creating python modules from windows DLLs.
Wobbly or
Manuzhai escreveu:
On 11/6/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
our python is rather wobbly. Chances are that the installed version is a
native python , and would work better.
But unless you have some way to fix this, the other installed Python
will not have Lilypond's modules in it
Graham Percival escreveu:
thanks, path is now at the end.
What if they have a different version of python installed? Would
lilypond try to use an unsupported version of python and fail, or does
lily only use its own installed python?
our python is rather wobbly. Chances are that the insta
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Manuzhai escreveu:
Hello there,
I installed Lilypond a while ago on my Windows workstation. Today I
discovered that this installation is quite aggressive: it puts
Lilypond front-and-center in my PATH, so that, for example, I get
Lilypond's Python whereas I might like t
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Manuzhai escreveu:
Hello there,
I installed Lilypond a while ago on my Windows workstation. Today I
discovered that this installation is quite aggressive: it puts
Lilypond front-and-center in my PATH, so that, for example, I get
Lilypond's Python whereas I might like to
Manuzhai escreveu:
Hello there,
I installed Lilypond a while ago on my Windows workstation. Today I
discovered that this installation is quite aggressive: it puts
Lilypond front-and-center in my PATH, so that, for example, I get
Lilypond's Python whereas I might like to get my own ActivePython.
Hello there,
I installed Lilypond a while ago on my Windows workstation. Today I
discovered that this installation is quite aggressive: it puts
Lilypond front-and-center in my PATH, so that, for example, I get
Lilypond's Python whereas I might like to get my own ActivePython. I
moved the LilyPond
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 12:29:24PM +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
> > ps: do we really still have to use backticks instead of $(...)?
> > Anyone running LilyPond on old systems with rotten shells?
>
> configure is about portability, why not keep the backticks?
> The same goes for shells with 32bit int
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
> Unfortunately, configure completely bails out then using something like
>
> $ PYTHON=/usr/local/bin/python2.4 ./configure ...
>
> The problem is in STEPMAKE_GETVERSION, since it takes the first
> line that looks like it contains a version number of the output
> from [Pat
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:51:01PM +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
> Given:
> $ ls -l /usr/bin/python*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 May 24 15:51 /usr/bin/python -> python2.3
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 958764 Mar 6 11:32 /usr/bin/python2.3
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1024460 Apr 23 01:34 /usr/
_$1], ... )
The second time AC_PATH_PROG() takes path from cache as seen in
configure trace above.
Since STEPMAKE_PYTHON() have a second argument (req. version)
and the cache don't know of versions, one should clear the cache when
seraching for a new python path.
Attached patch cor
18 matches
Mail list logo
