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
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
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
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
Carter Brey writes:
> Managed to compile 2.0.1 on RH 9 and its stock guile 1.6.0 with no
> obvious problems, but here is the verbose output when attempting to
> run it on a test file. What is this missing file
> ("libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1")?
It is a shared library loadable as plugin, that is
Hi there--
Managed to compile 2.0.1 on RH 9 and its stock guile 1.6.0 with no
obvious problems, but here is the verbose output when attempting to run
it on a test file. What is this missing file
("libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1")? Did I screw up the $LILYINCLUDE and
$LILYPONDPREFIX environmental
