lilypond-book error during test-baseline

the terminal output is below. — Dan Making input/regression/lilypond-book/out-test/texinfo-musicxml-file.texi < tely Making input/regression/lilypond-book/out-test/texinfo-papersize-docs.texi < tely Making input/regression/lilypond-book/out-test/suffix-latex.pdf < tex Making input/regres

Re: regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

>> ... it doesn't do a comparison against correct input. > > The lilypond-book directory tests features of lilypond-book, but it > doesn't any real comparison. Meaningful comparison would be to compare > PDF files (after processing with LaTeX) across versions, I dis

Re: regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:56 PM Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > So where's the problem? > > ... it doesn't do a comparison against correct input. The lilypond-book directory tests features of lilypond-book, but it doesn't any real comparison. Meaningful comparison would be

Re: regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

>> >> OK, but we don't have unit-testing for this directory either, >> >> right? > > And that descends into input/regression/lilypond-book: > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/jobs/715114070#L88 OK, thanks, missed that, but... > So where'

Re: regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

Am Mittwoch, den 02.09.2020, 19:23 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > >> OK, but we don't have unit-testing for this directory either, right? > > > > `make test` / `make check`? > > Yes. And that descends into input/regression/lilypond-book: https://gitlab.com/li

Re: regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

>> OK, but we don't have unit-testing for this directory either, right? > > `make test` / `make check`? Yes. > Why would you use `make doc` for that? I wouldn't. Werner

Re: regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

Am Mittwoch, den 02.09.2020, 18:56 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > >> It seems to me that not a single file in > >> > >> input/regression/lilypond-book > >> > >> gets processed during `make doc`. Has this ever worked? > > > > Appa

Re: regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

>> It seems to me that not a single file in >> >> input/regression/lilypond-book >> >> gets processed during `make doc`. Has this ever worked? > > Apparently 2.14 had some content: > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/input/regression/lilypond-book/c

Re: regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

Am Mittwoch, den 02.09.2020, 18:37 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > It seems to me that not a single file in > > input/regression/lilypond-book > > gets processed during `make doc`. Has this ever worked? Apparently 2.14 had some content: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/i

regression tests for `lilypond-book`?

It seems to me that not a single file in input/regression/lilypond-book gets processed during `make doc`. Has this ever worked? Werner

Re: [lilypond-book] @format environments

Am 13.07.2020 um 10:26 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: So we could either 1. Drop the support for 'addversion' in lilypond-book completely I favor that. Ok, if nobody else objects I will prepare a MR. Cheers, Michael Werner

Re: [lilypond-book] @format environments

> So we could either > > 1. Drop the support for 'addversion' in lilypond-book completely I favor that. Werner

Re: [lilypond-book] @format environments

roblem if the version strings were dropped, though. I would like to support this opinion. The 'addversion' option, as it is now, is useless for end users, because it relies on the @version macro to be defined. So we could either 1. Drop the support for 'addversion' in lily

Re[2]: [lilypond-book] @format environments

Michael Käppler, you wrote 09/07/2020 12:45:28 What strikes me the most is that 'addversion' is used only three times throughout the whole documentation, and these three occurrences are all in the LM, fundamental.itely What is the reason that the version string is mentioned for these particular

Re: [lilypond-book] @format environments

So I would vote to make @noindent [Version string if needed] @verbatim ... @end verbatim This is OK with me. Thanks for working on this! Hmm, not so simple as I thought at first. The version string should be printed in typewriter, like the code that immediately follows in the @verbatim envi

Re: [lilypond-book] @format environments

Am 06.07.2020 um 07:24 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: please see the attached files for a test case, [...] Thanks, looks good. Thanks for your feedback! What I did not test, however, was texi2html-1.82. Well, it will take some time until we can move on to a newer version, so this has to be tested, t

Re: [lilypond-book] @format environments

> please see the attached files for a test case, [...] Thanks, looks good. > What I did not test, however, was texi2html-1.82. Well, it will take some time until we can move on to a newer version, so this has to be tested, too. > So I would vote to make > > @noindent > [Version string if nee

Re: [lilypond-book] @format environments

if needed] @verbatim ... @end verbatim the default setting for verbatim snippets in texinfo. I already made some tests with a patched version of lilypond-book and could not spot differences, at least in the PDF manuals. What do you think? Cheers, Michael

Re: [lilypond-book] @format environments

> @format > @exampleindent 0 > @verbatim > \relative { > a4 b c d > } > @end verbatim > @end format > > [...] > > What I do not understand here: The @verbatim environment is not > indented by default, as far as I can see. What is the reason to set > '@exampleindent 0', here? > > (And the enclo

[lilypond-book] @format environments

Hi everyone, (Werner in particular ;)) I'm trying to understand the usage of quoting and formatting environments that occurs when lilypond-book transforms a .tely file to .texi. The following snippet, e.g., = @lilypond[verbatim] \relative { a4 b c d } @end lil

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

commit 7ab9c8fa4faff7a513d0ecfbc7eecf7efd2b8ea8 Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys Date: Sun Mar 1 17:47:53 2020 +0100 Add a FS lock to lilypond-book https://codereview.appspot.com/555360043/

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 10:35 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > To get back to your question: the consequences are worst when the job > > count is constrained due to memory pressure. My laptop has uncommonly > > large memory for its overall age and power, so I am not hit worst. The > > rough doublin

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

to get similar memory utilisation, for a considerable loss in > performance. I've taken a look at Make's jobserver implementation and > it is pretty straightforward. The real solution would, of course, be to > make lilypond-book, with its directory-based database, not lock o

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 4:30 PM David Kastrup wrote: > that starts up 3 copies of LilyPond for large workloads, as well as with > 3 jobs in other directories. can you point me to places within the build system where that would happen? AFAIK, our build is only parallel per directory, see here htt

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

> With guile-1 or guile-2? I'd use Guile-1, for the reason that it runs faster, eats less memory, and is more repeatable by virtue of not crashing. > I've little time atm, thus I'm not sure when I'm able to start > testings... The way this works is that running of lil

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/03/07 12:39:31, dak wrote: > Han-Wen Nienhuys <mailto:hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:18 PM <mailto:d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> > >> Sigh. I just noticed that opposed to the patch title, this does not > >> just

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:18 PM wrote: >> >> Sigh. I just noticed that opposed to the patch title, this does not >> just introduce a file lock for lilypond-book but _also_ changes the >> build system such that now almost double the numb

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:18 PM wrote: > > Sigh. I just noticed that opposed to the patch title, this does not > just introduce a file lock for lilypond-book but _also_ changes the > build system such that now almost double the number of allocated jobs > get used. It would be go

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

owing for > > > parallelism, but it is a solution to the contention problem. > > > > > > It is not a solution to lilypond-book starting more jobs than Make knows > about. > > > Or to all but one lilypond-book invocation not doing any progress and > blockin

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

to the contention problem. > > > > It is not a solution to lilypond-book starting more jobs than Make knows about. > > Or to all but one lilypond-book invocation not doing any progress and blocking > > Make which could instead start other actual single-process tasks. So I see th

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/26 11:59:14, dak wrote: > On 2020/02/26 08:28:33, hahnjo wrote: > > On 2020/02/26 08:19:39, hahnjo wrote: > > > > > On a philosophical level, it is a lilypond-book implementation detail > > > > that it can't deal with concurrent invocation, so

Re: dump lilypond-book log files in $(outdir) (issue 555330043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

Reviewers: lemzwerg, Message: commit dd4719211a0abe2399b5c17445989ffa68c7bef4 Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys Date: Fri Feb 21 18:29:22 2020 +0100 dump lilypond-book log files in $(outdir) https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5782 http://codereview.appspot.com/555330043

Re: Cleanup lilypond-book source (issue 583570043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

commit fa1ec0c100859f7490f524870743f03b54f89ab7 Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys Date: Mon Feb 24 09:40:08 2020 +0100 Reduce memory use of lilypond-book https://codereview.appspot.com/583570043/

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

superseeded by https://codereview.appspot.com/555360043/ https://codereview.appspot.com/547680043/

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/26 08:28:33, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/02/26 08:19:39, hahnjo wrote: > > > On a philosophical level, it is a lilypond-book implementation detail > > > that it can't deal with concurrent invocation, so the remediation for > > > this problem should be in

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:59 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > In this patch, we create a "xxx.lock" file, which is a little ugly. > Let me see if we can lock the directory directly. you can't (it has to be a file.) see https://gavv.github.io/articles/file-locks/#common-features for more background.

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

gly. Let me see if we can lock the directory directly. > > > On a philosophical level, it is a lilypond-book implementation detail > > that it can't deal with concurrent invocation, so the remediation for > > this problem should be in lilypond-book too. > > Let me disa

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/26 08:19:39, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/02/26 07:59:36, hanwenn wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:09 PM <mailto:jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Another solution might be serialize only lilypond-book and let tex et > > > al. run concurrently. Th

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/26 07:59:36, hanwenn wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:09 PM <mailto:jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Another solution might be serialize only lilypond-book and let tex et > > al. run concurrently. That should also be harmless, right? > > But this is e

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:09 PM wrote: > Another solution might be serialize only lilypond-book and let tex et > al. run concurrently. That should also be harmless, right? But this is exactly what this patch does. I don't understand your objection. Serializing mechanism in the m

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

So I can see a consistent improvement by ~40s for 'make -j4 CPU_COUNT=4 test', going down from ~4m to 3m30s. The patch at https://codereview.appspot.com/547680043 explains that this is due to parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/. I see no influence on 'make -j4 CPU_COUNT=

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/25 08:09:21, hanwenn wrote: > Jonas, did you want to have another look? Yes, hopefully later today, no guarantee though https://codereview.appspot.com/555360043/

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

Jonas, did you want to have another look? https://codereview.appspot.com/555360043/

Re: Run regression tests for lilypond-book (issue 2223). (issue 5569045)

https://codereview.appspot.com/5569045/diff/3001/input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile File input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/5569045/diff/3001/input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile#newcode36 input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile

Re: Cleanup lilypond-book source (issue 583570043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

LGTM https://codereview.appspot.com/583570043/

Re: Cleanup lilypond-book source (issue 583570043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

PTAL https://codereview.appspot.com/583570043/

Cleanup lilypond-book source (issue 583570043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

LGTM, thanks for the cleanup! In the future we might even consider putting all the book_*.py files into a directory / package. That should make it more natural to import them. https://codereview.appspot.com/583570043/diff/545630043/python/book_base_test.py File python/book_base_test.py (right):

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/23 00:10:31, dak wrote: > On 2020/02/22 23:56:23, hanwenn wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:29 AM wrote: > > > > > > On 2020/02/22 23:18:43, hanwenn wrote: > > > > On 2020/02/22 23:17:50, hanwenn wrote: > > > > > you were already potentially in a state where you

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/23 15:59:14, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/02/23 15:54:54, hanwenn wrote: > > I think this is worth it because it simplifies the build system, and puts the > > locking in the place where we actually access the resource. > > Let me disagree: It complicates lilypond-book w

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

> > locking in the place where we actually access the resource. > > > > > > Is there any indication that letting Make run multiple instances of > > > lilypond-book with every instance except one at a time locking up is going > to > > be > > > a ne

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

esource. > > > > Is there any indication that letting Make run multiple instances of > > lilypond-book with every instance except one at a time locking up is going to > be > > a net win for performance? > > input/regression/lilypond-book: > > rm -rf out-ts

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

multiple instances of > lilypond-book with every instance except one at a time locking up is going to be > a net win for performance? input/regression/lilypond-book: rm -rf out-tst; time make out=tst local-test -j4 CPU_COUNT=4 before real1m16.588s after real0m25.224s > I still d

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/23 15:54:54, hanwenn wrote: > I think this is worth it because it simplifies the build system, and puts the > locking in the place where we actually access the resource. Is there any indication that letting Make run multiple instances of lilypond-book with every instance except

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/23 15:54:54, hanwenn wrote: > I think this is worth it because it simplifies the build system, and puts the > locking in the place where we actually access the resource. Let me disagree: It complicates lilypond-book with something that no (external) user of the script cares abo

Re: Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

hnjo wrote: > You should close the file before removing it. on the contrary. We don't have to close it at all (on exit, all files are closed automatically.). If we close first, there is a larger chance of leaving the lock file hanging around. Description: Add a cooperative FS lock to lil

Add a cooperative FS lock to lilypond-book. (issue 555360043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

The current change leaves a few questions unanswered: What should lilypond-book do if there happens to be an old .lock file around? Right now, it just sits there and does nothing which is not obvious to the user. Also, what's the benefit of doing this? Is it worth doing in terms of ru

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 3:51 PM David Kastrup wrote: > We could, however, conceivably parallelize a lilypond-book job with PNG > backend and a lilypond-book job with PDF backend. I don't think that > those would share the same database (correct me if I am wrong). I have they

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

Dan Eble writes: > On Feb 23, 2020, at 09:11, David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> "Sharing Job Slots with GNU make" >>> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Job-Slots.html >> >> But that still doesn't solve the problem that the d

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Feb 23, 2020, at 09:11, David Kastrup wrote: > >> "Sharing Job Slots with GNU make" >> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Job-Slots.html > > But that still doesn't solve the problem that the database approach of > lilypond-book does

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 3:36 PM Dan Eble wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2020, at 09:04, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > > >> What would you recommend to a developer who doesn't want to run more than > >> J = M + N - 1 concurrent jobs due to lilypond development? What values of > >> M and N would serve best

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Feb 23, 2020, at 09:04, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > >> What would you recommend to a developer who doesn't want to run more than J >> = M + N - 1 concurrent jobs due to lilypond development? What values of M >> and N would serve best? > > Normally M=N= #cpus should be OK. A bit of extra para

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

So wouldn't it appear that the way to exploit parallelism with >> lilypond-book, short of writing its own jobserver, is to use CPU_COUNT >> like we did before? > > Making lilypond-book a client of the GNU make job server sounds like an > option. > > "Sharing Job S

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

should be OK. A bit of extra parallelism doesn't hurt, especially if you have hyperthreaded CPUs. > > So wouldn't it appear that the way to exploit parallelism with > > lilypond-book, short of writing its own jobserver, is to use CPU_COUNT > > like we did before? >

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

d you recommend to a developer who doesn't want to run more than J = M + N - 1 concurrent jobs due to lilypond development? What values of M and N would serve best? On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:00 PM wrote: > So wouldn't it appear that the way to exploit parallelism with > lilypond

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

gger a consistency check failure. >> >> So wouldn't it appear that the way to exploit parallelism with >> lilypond-book, short of writing its own jobserver, is to use CPU_COUNT >> like we did before? > > I think we should do both: the lilypond runs in lp-book should be &

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

dn't it appear that the way to exploit parallelism with > lilypond-book, short of writing its own jobserver, is to use CPU_COUNT > like we did before? I think we should do both: the lilypond runs in lp-book should be protected by some sort of lock, and we should use both CPU_COUNT=M and -

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/23 10:29:53, hanwenn wrote: > On 2020/02/23 10:04:46, hanwenn wrote: > > On 2020/02/23 09:49:24, dak wrote: > > > Stupid question: does the database design of lilypond-book even allow for > > > uncoordinated parallel runs? > > > > It's

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/23 10:04:46, hanwenn wrote: > On 2020/02/23 09:49:24, dak wrote: > > Stupid question: does the database design of lilypond-book even allow for > > uncoordinated parallel runs? > > It's not a stupid question; it's a good question. > > Writing fi

Re: Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

Reviewers: dak, Message: On 2020/02/23 09:49:24, dak wrote: > Stupid question: does the database design of lilypond-book even allow for > uncoordinated parallel runs? It's not a stupid question; it's a good question. Writing files atomically (open temp file, write, close, rena

Allow parallelism in input/regression/lilypond-book/ (issue 547680043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

Stupid question: does the database design of lilypond-book even allow for uncoordinated parallel runs? https://codereview.appspot.com/547680043/

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/22 23:56:23, hanwenn wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:29 AM wrote: > > > > On 2020/02/22 23:18:43, hanwenn wrote: > > > On 2020/02/22 23:17:50, hanwenn wrote: > > > > you were already potentially in a state where you have 3 jobs each > > spawning 3 > > > > lp-boo

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:29 AM wrote: > > On 2020/02/22 23:18:43, hanwenn wrote: > > On 2020/02/22 23:17:50, hanwenn wrote: > > > you were already potentially in a state where you have 3 jobs each > spawning 3 > > > lp-book invocations, > > > > whoops, I mean: 3 lp-book invocations spawning 3 li

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/22 23:18:43, hanwenn wrote: > On 2020/02/22 23:17:50, hanwenn wrote: > > you were already potentially in a state where you have 3 jobs each spawning 3 > > lp-book invocations, > > whoops, I mean: 3 lp-book invocations spawning 3 lilypond subprocesses each, for > 9 in total. Considering

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/569400043/diff/549600043/input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile File input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/569400043/diff/549600043/input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile#newcode42 input/regression/lilypond-book

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/22 23:17:50, hanwenn wrote: > you were already potentially in a state where you have 3 jobs each spawning 3 > lp-book invocations, whoops, I mean: 3 lp-book invocations spawning 3 lilypond subprocesses each, for 9 in total. https://codereview.appspot.com/569400043/

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

*** there cannot be > several simultaneously running lilypond-book instances, *** so the > -j make option does not significantly speed up the build > process. To help speed it up, the makefile variable CPU_COUNT may > be set in local.make or on the command line to th

Re: Run regression tests for lilypond-book (issue 2223). (issue 5569045)

https://codereview.appspot.com/5569045/diff/3001/input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile File input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/5569045/diff/3001/input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile#newcode36 input/regression/lilypond-book/GNUmakefile

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

How does this interact with CPU_COUNT, which is documented in the Contributor's Guide thus (emphasis mine)? The most time consuming task for building the documentation is running LilyPond to build images of music, and *** there cannot be several simultaneously running lilypond

Re: Use $(MAKE) instead of 'make' in lilypond-book regtests (issue 569400043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

LGTM https://codereview.appspot.com/569400043/

dump lilypond-book log files in $(outdir) (issue 555330043 by hanw...@gmail.com)

LGTM https://codereview.appspot.com/555330043/

Re: lilypond-book: Rewrite processing of snippets (issue 555220043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/02 15:33:05, hahnjo wrote: > > > I'd probably have chosen txt. > > > > Ok, will do. > > Meh: I did the change and it works, but subprocess_system in python/lilylib.py > will still output the .ly name. As this file doesn't exist anymore, it will just > make investigations in case of an

Re: lilypond-book: Rewrite processing of snippets (issue 555220043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/02 13:26:04, hahnjo wrote: > On 2020/02/02 13:21:58, Dan Eble wrote: > > On 2020/02/02 09:52:37, hahnjo wrote: > > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode432 > > > scripts/lilypond-book.py:432: snippet_names_file = 'snippet-names-%

Re: lilypond-book: Rewrite processing of snippets (issue 555220043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/02 13:21:58, Dan Eble wrote: > On 2020/02/02 09:52:37, hahnjo wrote: > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode432 > > scripts/lilypond-book.py:432: snippet_names_file = 'snippet-names-%s.ly' % > > checksum > > On 2020/02/01 16:54:40, D

Re: lilypond-book: Rewrite processing of snippets (issue 555220043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/02 09:52:37, hahnjo wrote: > https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode432 > scripts/lilypond-book.py:432: snippet_names_file = 'snippet-names-%s.ly' % > checksum > On 2020/02/01 16:54:40, Dan Eble wrote: > > It's strange that this is named *

Re: lilypond-book: Rewrite processing of snippets (issue 555220043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py File scripts/lilypond-book.py (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode409 scripts/lilypond-book.py:409: checksum = hashlib.md5 () On 2020/02/01 17:13:02, hanw

Re: lilypond-book: Remove custom package loading (issue 553490051 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

LGTM https://codereview.appspot.com/553490051/

Re: lilypond-book: Rewrite processing of snippets (issue 555220043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

LGTM (didn't look very closely though) https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py File scripts/lilypond-book.py (left): https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#oldcode426 scripts/lilypond-book.py:426: return hash ('

lilypond-book: Rewrite processing of snippets (issue 555220043 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

LGTM, but I'm no guru. https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py File scripts/lilypond-book.py (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/555220043/diff/553480046/scripts/lilypond-book.py#newcode432 scripts/lilypond-book.py:432: snippet_names_file = 'snippet-n

lilypond-book: Remove custom package loading (issue 553490051 by jonas.hahnf...@gmail.com)

Reviewers: , Message: If we want to retain this functionality, I will implement this via importlib.util.spec_from_file_location() + importlib.util.module_from_spec(). But I would like to keep complexity to a minimum, hence remove unused functionality. Description: lilypond-book: Remove custom

Re: lilypond-book-preamble and cropping

level. >>> >>> As Werner showed in https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/issues/268 >>> (https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/issues/268) there is an issue with >>> the output of scores compiled with `lilypond-book-preamble.ly`. AFAICT >>> this is something inh

Re: lilypond-book-preamble and cropping

thub.com/jperon/lyluatex/issues/268 >> (https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/issues/268) there is an issue with >> the output of scores compiled with `lilypond-book-preamble.ly`. AFAICT >> this is something inherent in the lilypond-book handling which should >> also be visible in a

Re: lilypond-book-preamble and cropping

) there is an issue with > the output of scores compiled with `lilypond-book-preamble.ly`. AFAICT > this is something inherent in the lilypond-book handling which should > also be visible in any lilypond-book scores. > > When compiling with lilypond-book-preamble the score gets sliced in

lilypond-book-preamble and cropping

I'm not sure if this is actually a *development* request or if it could also be solved at the "user" level. As Werner showed in https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/issues/268 (https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/issues/268) there is an issue with the output of scores compiled with

Re: Strange behavior of lilypond-book in self compiled install

On 02/10/17 16:51, Francisco Vila wrote: > I can not reproduce it just now. I uninstalled the precompiled version, > did make install from git a couple of times, uninstalled it again, > installed the procompiled version again, repeated everything a couple > of times, and it seems to work now. The e

Re: Strange behavior of lilypond-book in self compiled install

On 01/10/17 19:09, Federico Bruni wrote: > If a program behaving like another program is not the strangest thing > you have seen, well, for me it is. > Both musicxml2ly and lilypond-book are in fact the same program, a > python wrapper, which looks at `basename $0' to decide

Re: Strange behavior of lilypond-book in self compiled install

Il giorno dom 1 ott 2017 alle 17:27, Francisco Vila ha scritto: On 29/09/17 09:47, Francisco Vila wrote: Hello, In 2.19.80 (git translation branch) it happens that lilypond-book thinks it is musicxml2ly and behaves as such. When I install our pre-compiled version 2.19.65 from the web

Re: Strange behavior of lilypond-book in self compiled install

On 29/09/17 09:47, Francisco Vila wrote: > Hello, > In 2.19.80 (git translation branch) it happens that lilypond-book thinks > it is musicxml2ly and behaves as such. When I install our pre-compiled > version 2.19.65 from the web, everything looks right. > > I lack the knowledge

Strange behavior of lilypond-book in self compiled install

Hello, In 2.19.80 (git translation branch) it happens that lilypond-book thinks it is musicxml2ly and behaves as such. When I install our pre-compiled version 2.19.65 from the web, everything looks right. I lack the knowledge to debug this, but I'd thank any clue to begin with. Than

Re: Replace `-dgs-load-fonts' to `--bigpdfs' in lilypond-book (issue 300280043 by truer...@gmail.com)

>>> Do you have time to integrate this into lilypond in the near future? >> >> I would like so. My GUB environment can compile it for GUB inner >> using. (v1.0.0 could not compile.) >> >> But, I think that the integration requires a lot of time. > > Why? Please elaborate. At least, in order

Re: Replace `-dgs-load-fonts' to `--bigpdfs' in lilypond-book (issue 300280043 by truer...@gmail.com)

> At least, in order to avoid broken glyphs, we will need to change > whether or not embedding by the font type. OK, so the issue is not integrating `extractpdfmark' into lilypond but adjusting lilypond's font handling to make it work. > Moreover, we will need to change font resource directory >

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >