"Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I couldn't find either of these files anywhere on my machine. I
>> unchecked the DST box and ran the program a couple of times. No,
>> change.
>The leading dot in the name makes these system or hidden files.
That's how Unix works, not Windows. Files
Tim Slattery wrote:
"Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Vista fix for LilyPond releases for and after 2.11.42 is to uncheck
the
"Automatically adjust .." box, delete ~/.lilypond-fonts.cache-2 and run
LilyPond again to rebuild the cache. The "Automatically adjust ..." box
can then b
"Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Vista fix for LilyPond releases for and after 2.11.42 is to uncheck the
>"Automatically adjust .." box, delete ~/.lilypond-fonts.cache-2 and run
>LilyPond again to rebuild the cache. The "Automatically adjust ..." box
>can then be checked again an
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote Monday, November 17, 2008 1:39 PM
I´ve patched fontconfig in 2.11.64 to use a consistent stat() call
everywhere. Can you check if it fixes the DST/font cache problem?
I deleted ~/.lilypond-fonts.cache-2 and tried a test file. First run took
60 secs, second 4 secs.
a good test subject.
Nick
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Han-Wen Nienhuys
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2008 00:39
> To: Trevor Daniels
> Cc: Tim Slattery; lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: LilyPond is
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I´ve patched fontconfig in 2.11.64 to use a consistent stat() call
> everywhere. Can you check if it fixes the DST/font cache problem?
This fixed the problem for me on Windows XP SP3. LilyPond now seems
as fast as it
"Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Vista fix for LilyPond releases for and after 2.11.42 is to uncheck the
>"Automatically adjust .." box, delete ~/.lilypond-fonts.cache-2 and run
>LilyPond again to rebuild the cache. The "Automatically adjust ..." box
>can then be checked again and
I´ve patched fontconfig in 2.11.64 to use a consistent stat() call
everywhere. Can you check if it fixes the DST/font cache problem?
thanks!
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Neil Puttock wrote Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:32 PM
>>
>> 2008/11/15 Jona
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Neil, this seems to be at least one of the causes of the cache
> rebuild problem. I've always had the "Automatically adjust ..." box ticked,
> and have never experienced any problems, but then, my cache was first
Neil Puttock wrote Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:32 PM
2008/11/15 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Yes. Could you check the creation date of the large cache file,
and if that date is within your daylight saving period try
deleting the entire lilypond font cache, ie d
2008/11/15 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What I have not tried is re-checking the automatic daylight-savings
> adjustment box to see if it reverts to the old behavior of always rebuilding
> the fontconfig cache. If you'd like me to do this for the sake of testing,
> I will.
If my experien
Francisco Vila wrote:
2008/11/15 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Does Valentin have another one? :-)
Updated in http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=FAQ but
still waiting to confirm this. This page should not convert itself
into the poor's bugtracker, so if this gets more clear p
2008/11/15 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This did it, Neil! I unchecked the daylight savings box and reinstalled
> Lilypond after wiping out the old cache (not sure if these steps were
> necessary but I wanted to start out fresh), and after the first run, the
> cache was NOT rebuilt again.
(SOLVED for me, at least. See below...)
Neil Puttock wrote:
Hi Jon,
What happens if you untick `Automatically adjust clock for daylight
saving changes'?
I haven't had any problems even though my cache was created in April,
but forcing a rebuild results in the same delay you're experiencing
ev
Hi Jon,
2008/11/15 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes. Could you check the creation date of the large cache file,
>> and if that date is within your daylight saving period try
>> deleting the entire lilypond font cache, ie delete the
>> .lilypond-fonts.cache-2
Trevor Daniels wrote:
This suggests that the cache is believed to be invalid because the cache
timestamp doesn't match the directory create-time. Thought to be due to
incorrect correction for daylight-saving time. My cache was created on
21 March 2008, just over a week before the UK moved into
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Yes. Could you check the creation date of the large cache file,
and if that date is within your daylight saving period try
deleting the entire lilypond font cache, ie delete the
.lilypond-fonts.cache-2 directory so the font cache is rebuilt
from scratch. Maybe a long sho
er 2008 8:39 PM
> To: Patrick McCarty
> Cc: lilypond-user
> Subject: Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
>
> >
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18195
>
> This suggests that the cache is believed to be invalid because the
> cache
> tim
Jonathan Kulp wrote Friday, November 14, 2008 7:49 PM
Francisco Vila wrote:
2008/11/14 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have only upgraded a couple of times, and it was in response to this
thread, just to test it out. It's possible that I upgraded one more
time
before that. I always u
Patrick McCarty wrote Friday, November 14, 2008 10:11 PM
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Patrick McCarty wrote Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:34 PM
Is the large cache file being rebuilt mistakenly (on some Windows
systems)?
Yes; that is the probl
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Patrick McCarty wrote Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:34 PM
>>
>> Is the large cache file being rebuilt mistakenly (on some Windows
>> systems)?
>
> Yes; that is the problem exactly. Every other case of slowness on Window
2008/11/14 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (Either way it's incredibly slow. Why is it so much
> slower on Windows than on Linux?)
It has always been, since I can remember. Nobody seems to know why.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
http://www.paconet.org
___
Francisco Vila wrote:
2008/11/14 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have only upgraded a couple of times, and it was in response to this
thread, just to test it out. It's possible that I upgraded one more time
before that. I always use the Add/Remove program tool built into Windows,
accessed
I have a Vista Business system installed a week ago that has LP 2.11.63 on
it - no upgrade from an older version. The large font file in
C:\Users\Nick\.lilypond-fonts.cache-2 has the most recent date stamp of the
files in that dir, and is dated 12th November, which is last Wednesday, so
it's not be
Francisco Vila wrote:
2008/11/14 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have only upgraded a couple of times, and it was in response to this
thread, just to test it out. It's possible that I upgraded one more time
before that. I always use the Add/Remove program tool built into Windows,
accessed
2008/11/14 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have only upgraded a couple of times, and it was in response to this
> thread, just to test it out. It's possible that I upgraded one more time
> before that. I always use the Add/Remove program tool built into Windows,
> accessed by the Control P
> Does the Windows Add/Remove GUI use this uninstall.exe file or does it
use
> something else?
The application's install routine is supposed to make an entry in the
Add/Remove list that includes a pointer to its own uninstaller. Assuming
this entry was made correctly, there should be no diffe
Jonathan Kulp wrote:
I have only upgraded a couple of times, and it was in response to this
thread, just to test it out. It's possible that I upgraded one more
time before that. I always use the Add/Remove program tool built into
Windows, accessed by the Control Panel. On Linux I always ru
Trevor Daniels wrote:
OK, Jonathan, thanks. Let's see if we together can get a bit further with
solving this problem since we have very similar systems - mine works,
yours doesn't - so all we have to do is find what is different. I'd bet
it is
something to do with the different history of L
Jonathan Kulp wrote Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:30 PM
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Trevor is correct. Every instance of lilypond slowness was caused by
fontconfig caches. The problem is that there are a bazillion of
win
Simon Dahlbacka wrote Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:59 PM
The problem is that the problem is often hard to diagnose and
reproduce without having the afflicted machine at hand. In general,
my takeaway from it is that shipping software on top of Windows is a
religious experience. You can never b
Patrick McCarty wrote Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:34 PM
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't understand the technical issues, but on Vista
the fonts are contained in ~\.lilypond-fonts.cache-2.
(To see these make sure you have the options set in
> > it sits for almost 50 seconds, apparently doing NOTHING. Then it
wakes
> > up and processes the file. It's still usable, but it sure slows
things
> > down.
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> just to be sure: which 2.11 version are you referring to?
It's 2.10.33
> (and have you deleted the fontconfig cache b
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't understand the technical issues, but on Vista
> the fonts are contained in ~\.lilypond-fonts.cache-2.
> (To see these make sure you have the options set in
> Windows Explorer to Show hidden file and folders.)
> T
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Could any of you seeing this problem try to install version 2.11.43-2 from
http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/mingw/lilypond-2.11.43-2.mingw.exe
and see if it has the same problems. It's probably a good idea to remove
all files related
to the font cache fir
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Perhaps it's worth investigating if it's a problem that has come back in
the most recent
development versions or if the solution in version 2.11.43-2 only helped
for some users.
Could any of you seeing this problem try to install version 2.11.43-2 from
http://download.lin
>
>
> The problem is that the problem is often hard to diagnose and
> reproduce without having the afflicted machine at hand. In general,
> my takeaway from it is that shipping software on top of Windows is a
> religious experience. You can never be sure that it works, so you have
> to pray a lot.
gt;; "Tim Slattery"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
Trevor,
I wouldnt look in the first place at problems of Lilypond. I presume that
it
is a problem of Vista which has too many proces
Perhaps it's worth investigating if it's a problem that has come back in
the most recent
development versions or if the solution in version 2.11.43-2 only helped
for some users.
Could any of you seeing this problem try to install version 2.11.43-2 from
http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/bi
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor is correct. Every instance of lilypond slowness was caused by
fontconfig caches. The problem is that there are a bazillion of
windows versions; I'm not talking about XP vs. Vista but rathe
2008/11/13 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The problem is that the problem is often hard to diagnose and
> reproduce without having the afflicted machine at hand. In general,
> my takeaway from it is that shipping software on top of Windows is a
> religious experience. You can never be sur
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The slowness is certainly not inherently due to Vista
> as LilyPond has always run fine under Vista here. The
> slowness issue was discussed at some length back in
> March 08 on both -user and -bug when it was determined
dll but this is unlikely now as the
>>> appropriate version of this dll is included with
>>> every binary. Another possibility is that when this dll
>>> searches for the font cache it checks for an old cache
>>> first. The fonts used to be cached in
nt: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
Tim Slattery wrote:
Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
545 Defect Verified Medium v.villenaveLilyPond is
excessively slow on Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_11_43
Rob,
day, November 12, 2008 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
Tim Slattery wrote:
Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
545 Defect Verified Medium v.villenaveLilyPond is
excessively slow on Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_11_43
Rob,
Have you checked
day, November 12, 2008 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
Tim Slattery wrote:
Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
545 Defect Verified Medium v.villenaveLilyPond is
excessively slow on Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_11_43
Rob,
Have you checked
ber 12, 2008 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
Tim Slattery wrote:
Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
545 Defect Verified Medium ---- v.villenaveLilyPond is excessively
slow on Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_11_43
Rob,
Have you checked t
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
>
> 11/12/2008 12:43 PM
> To
> "Tim Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc
> lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject
> Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
>
>
>
>
> It was Ubuntu 8.10 but XP SP2 and I took the time m
Mats Bengtsson ee.kth.se> writes:
>
> Could any of you Vista users, try to run LilyPond from the command line
> with the --verbose flag, to see what step of the compilation process
> takes most time?
>
"Building font database" is the time-consuming part.
__
Carl Sorensen byu.edu> writes:
> Have you checked that it's slow the _second_ time you run a file? It will
be
> slow the first time it runs because it needs to build a font cache, but
> successive times should not be slow.
>
> Please let us know if it stays slow.
Slow every time.
2008/11/12 Bailey James E. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That would slow it down. Lilypond creates the fontconfig cache the first
> time it runs. Deleting it would mean that lilypond would need to recreate
> it, thus increasing processing time.
... only once, the first time. Right?
--
Francisco Vila. B
o Dezelski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/12/2008 12:43 PM
To
"Tim Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject
Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
It was Ubuntu 8.10 but XP SP2 and I took the time measure from Lilypond.
Of course I ran the
545 Defect Verified Medium v.villenave LilyPond is
excessively slow on Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_11_43
Rob,
Have you checked that it's slow the _second_ time you run a file?
It will be slow the first time it runs because it needs to build a
font cache, but successive times s
Bailey James E. wrote:
Your answer has one tip (also mentioned previously in this thread)
that I haven't tried--I haven't deleted the fontconfig cache. I'll
try to find it, delete, reinstall, and run again to see if it improves
performance.
That would slow it down. Lilypond creates the fontc
It was Ubuntu 8.10 but XP SP2 and I took the time measure from Lilypond. Of
course I ran the tests several times. On XP I only ran the necessary
processes and the compile times were stable. Ubuntu was right out of the box
and compile times differed. I switched back to XP for it was easier for me
to
Am 12.11.2008 um 21:02 schrieb Jonathan Kulp:
Francisco Vila wrote:
2008/11/12 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
For the sake of testing, I booted into my Vista Home Premium
partition and
installed the latest Lilypond binary from the download page. I
ran a
lilypond file once and it took
Francisco Vila wrote:
2008/11/12 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
For the sake of testing, I booted into my Vista Home Premium partition and
installed the latest Lilypond binary from the download page. I ran a
lilypond file once and it took about 90 seconds, then ran it a second time
and it t
2008/11/12 Jonathan Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> For the sake of testing, I booted into my Vista Home Premium partition and
> installed the latest Lilypond binary from the download page. I ran a
> lilypond file once and it took about 90 seconds, then ran it a second time
> and it took more than 60
Tim Slattery wrote:
Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
545 Defect Verified Medium v.villenaveLilyPond is excessively slow on
Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_11_43
Rob,
Have you checked that it's slow the _second_ time you run a file? It will be
slow the fi
2008/11/12 Tim Slattery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> it sits for almost 50 seconds, apparently doing NOTHING. Then it wakes
> up and processes the file. It's still usable, but it sure slows things
> down.
Hi Tim,
just to be sure: which 2.11 version are you referring to?
(and have you deleted the font
Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 545 Defect Verified Medium ---- v.villenaveLilyPond is excessively slow
>> on
>> Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_11_43
>>
>
>Rob,
>
>Have you checked that it's slow the _second_ time
Sorry,
no chance. I have errased Vista from my system and they live happily ever
after ...
But to be correct: The "little" Thinkpadseries seem to have problems with
Vista. That was one off the reasons why Lenovo officially provided a
Downgradeversion from Vista to XP. We had similiar effects on o
a
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2008 7:44 PM
> To: Hajo Dezelski
> Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LilyPond is excessively slow on Windows Vista
>
> 2008/11/12 Hajo Dezelski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Sometimes ago I had the same problem
Francisco Vila wrote Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:44 AM
2008/11/12 Hajo Dezelski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sometimes ago I had the same problem and I messured the compilation times
of
one and the same lilypond music file.
So throw away Vista and you will see light at the end of the tunnel
Thi
2008/11/12 Hajo Dezelski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sometimes ago I had the same problem and I messured the compilation times of
> one and the same lilypond music file.
> So throw away Vista and you will see light at the end of the tunnel
This could have changed. It would be fine if you repeated the t
Hello,
dont beat the messenger, its the donkey:
Sometimes ago I had the same problem and I messured the compilation times of
one and the same lilypond music file.
modelage OS Processor memory
Compiletimet
Thinkpad x21ca. 10XP 700 MHz
2008/11/12 Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Have you checked that it's slow the _second_ time you run a file?
>> It will be slow the first time it runs because it needs to build a
>> font cache, but successive times should not be slow.
>
> Just wondering: Does lilypond emit a message that t
> Have you checked that it's slow the _second_ time you run a file?
> It will be slow the first time it runs because it needs to build a
> font cache, but successive times should not be slow.
Just wondering: Does lilypond emit a message that the font cache is
being generated, and that this usuall
>
> 545 Defect Verified Medium v.villenaveLilyPond is excessively slow
> on
> Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_11_43
>
Rob,
Have you checked that it's slow the _second_ time you run a file? It will be
slow the first time it runs because it needs to bui
I'm a first-time LilyPond user. I just downloaded version 2.11.63 for Vista
and noticed the same behavior described in the following defect, which was
fixed in 2.11.43:
545 Defect Verified Medium v.villenaveLilyPond is excessively slow on
Windows Vista Performance fixed_2_
70 matches
Mail list logo
