Re: 2.12.3 source tarball changed (back in january)

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:01:36AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: > > > In particular, there was some build-related problem (maybe in the > > autoconf stuff?) that a packager wanted fixed.  I had thought it > > was from one of the BSDs,

Re: T1055: Avoid using deprecated %module-public-interface in guile initialisation. (issue1160044)

Have new patch-set ready, Message describing this patch set: Can handler and stray dots from lily.scm, remove lily-lexer & define-grob-properties from patch, but git-cl doesn't think I own this issue any more :-(. Closing this issue and opening a new one with correct tracker reference. Cheers, I

Re: [frogs] T1224: Avoid using deprecated %module-public-interface in guile initialisation. (issue1160044)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Han-Wen and all, I can't upload the patch-set to Rietveld, and I seem to have lost ownership of the issue on Reitveld, so I can't close it and open a new issue either. On 30/08/10 03:31, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Ia

programmatic pure-print stumbling block

Hey all, I recently tried to programmatically add a pure-print function to the list of pure-print functions using the setter method I proposed, which sent lilypond into a 13+h spiral of compilation in functions having to do with skylines and page breaks that I don't really understand (this is w

Re: programmatic pure-print stumbling block

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Mike Solomon wrote: > Hey all, >I recently tried to programmatically add a pure-print function to the > list of pure-print functions using the setter method I proposed, which sent > lilypond into a 13+h spiral of compilation in functions having to do with > s

ghostscript improvements in gub

Hi Jan, Should I build GUB from the current head (i.e. including the merged ghostscript branch), or should I keep on using the 2.13.30-tagged version of GUB ? Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/

Re: ghostscript improvements in gub

Op dinsdag 31-08-2010 om 22:07 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham Percival: > Should I build GUB from the current head (i.e. including the > merged ghostscript branch), or should I keep on using the > 2.13.30-tagged version of GUB ? The changes in GUB are steps towards upstream integration. IWB

Re: ghostscript improvements in gub

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10:50PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Op dinsdag 31-08-2010 om 22:07 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham > Percival: > > > Should I build GUB from the current head (i.e. including the > > merged ghostscript branch), or should I keep on using the > > 2.13.30-tagged v

T1224: Avoid using deprecated %module-public-interface in initialization (issue2083043)

Reviewers: carl.d.sorensen_gmail.com, Neil Puttock, hanwenn, Patrick McCarty, Message: New issue as I can't edit 116044 on Rietveld any more. Cheers, Ian Description: Successor to issue 116044. Removed handler and stray dots in lily.scm. Removed lily-lexer.cc and define-grob-proerties.scm from

Odd messaage from 2.13.32

Hey all, Just got 2.13.32 running and got the following message: warning: couldn't fit music on page: overflow is -0.00 I think it's good to get a warning message when there's spillover, but it seems odd that an overflow of 0 would solicit a warning message. Thoughts? ~Mike _