Re: [lilypond] Re: [inbox] Re: Runtime problem with 2.0.1

2003-10-08 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Carter Brey writes: > /version "1.6.5" Use \version > but 2.0.1 choked on the resulting .ly files anyway. Please post a small example of the problem. > As you say, it may be that convert-ly is buggy. There are already fixes in CVS, but I feel reluctant to make a new release only for a fix in

Re: [lilypond] Re: [inbox] Re: Runtime problem with 2.0.1

2003-10-07 Thread Carter Brey
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Carter Brey writes: convert-ly only goes up to 1.9.8. Looks like I'll have to aquaint myself with what is obviously new syntax since I last used the program. There have not been any syntax changes since 1.9.8. Most changes should be converted by convert-ly. Note

Re: [inbox] Re: Runtime problem with 2.0.1

2003-10-07 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Carter Brey writes: > convert-ly only goes up to 1.9.8. Looks like I'll have to aquaint > myself with what is obviously new syntax since I last used the > program. There have not been any syntax changes since 1.9.8. Most changes should be converted by convert-ly. Note that we had some bugreport

Re: [inbox] Re: Runtime problem with 2.0.1

2003-10-06 Thread Carter Brey
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: There has been a lot of discussion about this on the lilypond lists. Have you considered installing lilypond from planet CCRMA? Jan. Jan, Thanks for the reply; I upgraded finally to guile-1.6.4 and recompiled. LilyPond 2.0.1 runs perfectly now. Alas, all my source fi