Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread Phillip Lord
> "Bob" == Bob Schmertz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bob> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I've been using Lily for about two years now, always compiling >> from source, usually with no problems. Having not had time to do >> any typesetting for six months or so I thought

Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread Bob Schmertz
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I've been using Lily for about two years now, always compiling from >source, usually with no problems. Having not had time to do any >typesetting for six months or so I thought it was time to get back to >it, and set about installing the latest 'stable

Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > user should need to edit their bashrc for a > > > particular app (none of my other apps seem to > > > require this - but then they probably don't > > > install fonts either). > > > > If you use the RPM (you can build one yourself by doing rpm -tb > > lilypond.ta

Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread Mats Bengtsson
> > user should need to edit their bashrc for a > > particular app (none of my other apps seem to > > require this - but then they probably don't > > install fonts either). > > If you use the RPM (you can build one yourself by doing rpm -tb > lilypond.tar.gz) the script is sourced automatically.

Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Is there a good reason why the fonts aren't on the > standard TEX/MF paths? It seems odd that every Yes. Tetex has a yearly release cycle, we have a weekly release cycle, so we have to install them into the (te)tex tree. As tetex doesn't offer any standard way to insta

Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Is there a good reason why the fonts aren't on the > standard TEX/MF paths? I guess that's because there's no such thing. The RPM's are probably built to work on rpm based systems in general. If you use a distribution that supports LilyPond (eg, Debian or SuSE?), th

Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread Laura Conrad
> "ben" == ben tordoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ben> Is there a good reason why the fonts aren't on the ben> standard TEX/MF paths? It seems odd that every ben> user should need to edit their bashrc for a ben> particular app (none of my other apps seem to ben> require t

Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread ben . tordoff
> Did you formerly source /buildscripts/lilypond-profile and > you should now be sourcing /buildscripts/out/lilypond-profile ? Ooops. Yes, I need to learn to read! I managed to find a backup of my old .bashrc, and sure enough there are lines there setting TEXFONTS and MFINPUTS etc. I just not

Re: Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread Laura Conrad
> "ben" == ben tordoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ben> does anyone know what step I'm missing? I used to ben> have no problems with the 1.3.xxx series, but ben> perhaps there is an extra config step that isn't ben> in the install guide (a PATH setting perhaps?), ben> and

Another silly font question

2001-11-01 Thread ben . tordoff
I've been using Lily for about two years now, always compiling from source, usually with no problems. Having not had time to do any typesetting for six months or so I thought it was time to get back to it, and set about installing the latest 'stable' rpm (Redhat7.1). This is on a completely vanill