Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Sorry, I think I've made some confusion here, setting HOME different
> than the default in cygwin.bat
>
> So I found now that the .texmf directory was created with d-
> rights. After setting the drwx rights, updmap works. I don't know what
> was ~/.texmf created b
It seems that you have set $HOME to /cygdrive/d/Berti/.
Normally, the home directory in Cygwin is somewhere below /home/
My only guess for the "no permissions" error is that you actually
have Windows level write permissions in D:\Berti\.
As Jan already responded, you should use updmap-sys if you wa
Sorry, I think I've made some confusion here, setting HOME different
than the default in cygwin.bat
So I found now that the .texmf directory was created with d-
rights. After setting the drwx rights, updmap works. I don't know what
was ~/.texmf created by.
What errors?
Only the PK-f
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> I forgot to ask. Should I rebuild lily with the new tetex, before
> reporting the errors? Or should they disappear without rebuilding
> lily?
What errors?
We should devise an upgrade path. Best would be
1. upload lilypond with all tetex-3.0 fixes, built against tetex
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> There are problems with new configuration. When I run updmap:
>
> updmap: no permissions for writing
> /cygdrive/d/Berti/.texmf/var/web2c/updmap.log', so no transcript
You may want to run updmap-sys, or do mkdir ~/.texmf
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
I forgot to ask. Should I rebuild lily with the new tetex, before
reporting the errors? Or should they disappear without rebuilding lily?
Bert
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
There are problems with new configuration. When I run updmap:
updmap: no permissions for writing
/cygdrive/d/Berti/.texmf/var/web2c/updmap.log', so no transcript
There was a problem finding a proper place to store configuration data.
The message was:
Directory TEXMFCONFIG=`/cygdrive/d/Berti/.tex
Hmm. texmf.cnf should say
VARTEXFONTS = /var/cache/fonts
and mktex.cnf should say
: ${MT_FEATURES=appendonlydir:varfonts}
Is that so? If pk fonts are still written to the source tree, you may
have found a tetex-3.0 bug. Mats?
Yes, it is so.
What is the value of $TEXMF, and what does
TE
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> I've installed tetex-3.0.0-1.
Ok, thanks.
> Into which CVS? (I've got no attachment).
Both :-)
>>>- PK fonts are generated in /usr/share/lilypond/2.4.3/pk - that's ok
>>> on cygwin, but may be not right in other environments.
>>
>>That's another tetex-2.99 packaging b
I've installed tetex-3.0.0-1.
This would be the normal way, but lilypond tries to provide a TEXMF
TDS in share/lilypond/x.y.z/. The location of map files changed too
for 3.0, so I've added a fix to CVS (also attached).
Into which CVS? (I've got no attachment)
- PK fonts are generated in /usr/sh
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Two problems found after installing:
>
> - dvips can't find the pfa fonts, unless I call updmap --enable
> Map=/usr/share/lilypond/2.4.3/dvips/lilypond.map
> Is this the normal way (putting this into postinstall)?
This would be the normal way, but lilypond tries to prov
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> What does that mean? I've chosen mftrace 1.1.2, because it installs
> gracefully on cygwin. But that version has other options, than earlier
> ones. That's why I sent the patches.
And I've included them in HEAD, so that building 2.5.x should be ok.
I did not include all i
Two problems found after installing:
- dvips can't find the pfa fonts, unless I call updmap --enable
Map=/usr/share/lilypond/2.4.3/dvips/lilypond.map
Is this the normal way (putting this into postinstall)?
- PK fonts are generated in /usr/share/lilypond/2.4.3/pk - that's ok on
cygwin, but may be
mftrace cannot use tetex-3.0 settings by default yet, and lilypond-2.4
does not depend on mftrace development version yet. mftrace 1.1.x has
incompatible options, but I do not feel like writing an autoconf check
right now.
What does that mean? I've chosen mftrace 1.1.2, because it installs
gr
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Now it is built now. I suggest applying the attached patches.
Good. thanks, I've applied them partly, some only to HEAD.
mftrace cannot use tetex-3.0 settings by default yet, and lilypond-2.4
does not depend on mftrace development version yet. mftrace 1.1.x has
incompa
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> I don't have etex, only etex.exe. And I have only the following links:
This is probably a bug with my tetex-2.99 package, I'll fix this for
3.0.
> I've replaced it with the newest texinfo.tex from texinfo-4.8
Ok.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU Li
Now it is built now. I suggest applying the attached patches.
lilypond: mftrace 1.1.2 compatibility, python 2.4 compatibity
ec-fonts-mftraced: tetex-3.0 compatibility
Bert
Index: buildscripts/builder.py
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/lilypond/
So, this is a smart fix, but it fixes the wrong bug. texi2dvi is a
shell script, if I run:
bash -x texi2dvi lilypond
texi2dvi runs etex as tex for me
l ~usr/pkg/tetex/bin/etex
lrwxrwxrwx 1 janneke janneke 7 2005-02-08 13:07 usr/pkg/tetex/bin/etex ->
pdfetex*
I don't have etex, on
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Almost there :-)
> Do you have an idea why this happens?
No, but we can find out. In tetex-3.0, most *tex commands are
actually pdfetex, so
> cd /netrel/build/lilypond-2.4.4-1//Documentation/user/out-www;
> texi2dvi --batch lilypond.texi
> This is e-TeXk, Version 3.1415
Almost there :-)
Do you have an idea why this happens?
cd /netrel/build/lilypond-2.4.4-1//Documentation/user/out-www; texi2dvi
--batch lilypond.texi
This is e-TeXk, Version 3.141592-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.3)
file:line:error style messages enabled.
%&-line parsing enabled.
---! /var/lib/texmf/web2c/etex.fm
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Now finding fonts is a problem. I don't really know, how font paths
> are set in the build files. I suppose you will know the problem at
> once :-)
I checked-in another fix to CVS, for dvips to find the lilypond.map
file.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhu
Thanks.
Now finding fonts is a problem. I don't really know, how font paths are
set in the build files. I suppose you will know the problem at once :-)
Invoking `dvips -Ppdf -u+ec-mftrace.map -u+lilypond.map -E -o
lily-486173724.eps lily-486173724'This is dvips(k) 5.94b Copyright 2004
Radical E
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
> Thanks. Fixed in CVS, see patch below.
And for running, you also need this patch.
Jan.
Index: GNUmakefile
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/lilypond/lilypond/tex/GNUmakefile,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Still struggling with 2.4.4.
>
> First, there is a problem with versions.
> There is a 2.4.4 uploaded to the downloads.
> Checking out the cvs -r2.4 contains some files that are newer than in
> 2.4.4, and some older.
> The notation.itely file is broken in the cvs version.
Still struggling with 2.4.4.
First, there is a problem with versions.
There is a 2.4.4 uploaded to the downloads.
Checking out the cvs -r2.4 contains some files that are newer than in
2.4.4, and some older.
The notation.itely file is broken in the cvs version.
The cvs version calls itself 2.4.3
N
So should I put these changes to 2.4.4 source files?
No, they are already in 2.4-CVS (or you may try the pathes below). Do
something like:
cvs -d :ext:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/lilypond co -rlilypond_2_4 -d
lilypond-2.4 lilypond
I'm not sure if/when 2.4.4 will happen, CVS is still at 2.
Oops. I found that the latin1.enc problem is not coming from tetex,
because putting the previous tetex version back has the same failure.
I'll try to find the problem.
Bert
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mai
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Building 2.4.4 gave the same failure. I suppose we want current
> stable lilypond to work with tetex-3.0, don't we?
That is not important, we can assume that people who upgrade tetex
also upgrade lilypond. I will not be uploading tetex-3.0 before
a new lilypond package
Building 2.4.4 gave the same failure. I suppose we want current stable
lilypond to work with tetex-3.0, don't we?
So should I put these changes to 2.4.4 source files?
Bert
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailm
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Running lilypond-2.4.2 with tetex 2.99.7:
Is it really 2.4.2 you are using?
2.4.2 does not have all tetex-3.0 fixes, such as
2005-01-03 Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Backport teTeX-3.0 compatibility.
* SConstruct:
*
Thanks for suggesting looking at texmf.cnf
I've found the following:
TEXMFMAIN = /usr/share/texmf
TEXMFCONFIG = $TEXMFMAIN
% - make sure that $TEXMFVAR precedes $TEXMFMAIN in the TEXMF definition.
TEXMF =
{!!$TEXMFCONFIG,!!$TEXMFVAR,!!$TEXMFMAIN,$TEXMFHOME,!!$TEXMFLOCAL,!!$TEXMFDIST}
As you ca
Another problem.
Running lilypond-2.4.2 with tetex 2.99.7:
warning: lily-guile: can't find "latin1.enc"
Backtrace:
In /usr/share/lilypond/2.4.2/scm/page-layout.scm:
91: 24 (let* (# # # #) (if # #) head-stencil)
96: 25* (if (procedure? header-proc) (header-proc layout scopes number
last?) #f)
9
Hi,
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Bertalan Fodor wrote:
> I've found the problem, but I'm still not sure in solution:
> there is an mf.base file in
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c
>
> But texconfig creates its formats in
> /var/lib/texmf/web2c
What's in your texmf.cnf? (It typically resides in /etc or /etc/texmf
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> I've found the problem, but I'm still not sure in solution:
> there is an mf.base file in
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c
That's strange.
> But texconfig creates its formats in
> /var/lib/texmf/web2c
That's correct.
> So mf looks at the wrong place for mf.base
Can you find o
I've found the problem, but I'm still not sure in solution:
there is an mf.base file in
/usr/share/texmf/web2c
But texconfig creates its formats in
/var/lib/texmf/web2c
So mf looks at the wrong place for mf.base
Shouldn't mf.base and the other format files generated into
/usr/share/texmf/web2c?
B
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> Applied. Still the same error message with:
>
> mf-nowin -progname=mf asdf
> mf asdf
Hmm. Then the mf format has not been built or cannot be found. Try
building all formats by doing
texconfig init
mktexlsr
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU Li
Applied. Still the same error message with:
mf-nowin -progname=mf asdf
mf asdf
Bert
Forgot to warn that you need this patch
2005-01-09 Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* config.make.in (METAFONT): Append -progname=mf, fixes use with
mf-nowin for teTeX-3.0. Backportme.
_
Bertalan Fodor writes:
> I tried, but there is a problem. The log is this:
>
> make[2]: Entering directory `/netrel/src/lilypond-2.4.4/mf'
Forgot to warn that you need this patch
2005-01-09 Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* config.make.in (METAFONT): Append -progname=mf, fixes u
I tried, but there is a problem. The log is this:
make[2]: Entering directory `/netrel/src/lilypond-2.4.4/mf'
mf-nowin "\mode:=laserjet; nonstopmode; input feta11.mf;"
This is METAFONT, Version 2.71828 (Web2C 7.5.3)
(Fatal base file error; I'm stymied)
make[2]: *** [/netrel/build/lilypond-2.4.4//mf
Bert,
Does lilypond build and work with the tetex-2.99.7 test release?
teTeX-3.0 is planned for this weekend. I am planning to move
the tetex-3.0 into the [curr] distribution when it arrives.
If I find the time, I'll be releasing tetex-2.99.12 into [test] befort
that. Changes from 2.99.7 are t
40 matches
Mail list logo
