Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Am 07.12.2016 um 15:28 schrieb Federico Bruni: Il giorno mer 7 dic 2016 alle 13:34, Dr. Tobias Quathamer ha scritto: The link points to the obsolete dependencies. You'll want this link instead:

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Antonio Ospite writes: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:42:29 +0100 > Urs Liska wrote: > >> Am 07.11.2016 um 17:08 schrieb Federico Bruni: >> > In case you don't know already, last news about guile2 and debian: >> >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Il giorno mer 7 dic 2016 alle 13:34, Dr. Tobias Quathamer ha scritto: The link points to the obsolete dependencies. You'll want this link instead: This has an updated fonts

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Am 07.12.2016 um 11:06 schrieb Urs Liska: Am 07.12.2016 um 10:31 schrieb Antonio Ospite: For the time being, you can still get the list of dependencies from here: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/lilypond.git/tree/debian/control?h=debian And pass the list to apt-get. Yes, but as

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Il giorno mer 7 dic 2016 alle 11:41, Urs Liska ha scritto: Sorry, I should have told you to install guile-1.8-dev instead of guile-2.0-dev (now the default in LilyDev, as we want other people to test the work on guile2 migration). And where do I get this from as it

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Am 07.12.2016 um 11:34 schrieb Federico Bruni: > Il giorno mer 7 dic 2016 alle 10:28, Urs Liska ha > scritto: >> OK, thank you. >> After installing these building LilyPond fails with the following error: >> >> WARNING: Please consider installing optional programs or files:

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Il giorno mer 7 dic 2016 alle 10:28, Urs Liska ha scritto: OK, thank you. After installing these building LilyPond fails with the following error: WARNING: Please consider installing optional programs or files: URW++ OTF fonts (download OTF files from

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Am 07.12.2016 um 10:31 schrieb Antonio Ospite: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:42:29 +0100 > Urs Liska wrote: > >> Am 07.11.2016 um 17:08 schrieb Federico Bruni: >>> In case you don't know already, last news about guile2 and debian: >>>

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:42:29 +0100 Urs Liska wrote: > Am 07.11.2016 um 17:08 schrieb Federico Bruni: > > In case you don't know already, last news about guile2 and debian: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746005#216 > > Just for the record (although

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Am 07.12.2016 um 09:53 schrieb Federico Bruni: > Il giorno mer 7 dic 2016 alle 8:42, Urs Liska ha > scritto: >>> In case you don't know already, last news about guile2 and debian: >>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746005#216 >> >> Just for the record

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Am 07.12.2016 um 09:53 schrieb Federico Bruni: > Yesterday I was updating LilyDev to stretch (now testing) and I found > that ttf- packages are no more in Debian. B I wanted to install ttf-inconsolata and was directed to install fonts-inconsolata instead. Does that help?

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Il giorno mer 7 dic 2016 alle 8:42, Urs Liska ha scritto: In case you don't know already, last news about guile2 and debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746005#216 Just for the record (although it's probably evident): This doesn't only mean one

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Am 07.11.2016 um 17:08 schrieb Federico Bruni: > In case you don't know already, last news about guile2 and debian: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746005#216 Just for the record (although it's probably evident): This doesn't only mean one can't install "lilypond" from

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-12-06 11:14 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:24:26 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > >> 2016-11-29 19:34 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : >> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:11:35 +0100 >> > Thomas Morley wrote:

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:24:26 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: > 2016-11-29 19:34 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:11:35 +0100 > > Thomas Morley wrote: > > > >> 2016-11-25 23:19 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite :

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-29 19:34 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:11:35 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > >> 2016-11-25 23:19 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : >> >> > In the mean time I started to write a TODO list of the missing pieces: > [...]

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Federico Bruni wrote: Ok, I'm working on it. I've just run into a weird error while building the new image with live-build. I'll see if I can get some help from the live-build mailing list to solve it. A quick email just to let you know

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:11:35 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: > 2016-11-25 23:19 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > > > In the mean time I started to write a TODO list of the missing pieces: [...] > Another one for the TODO-list > lilypond is not able to find files

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-25 23:19 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > In the mean time I started to write a TODO list of the missing pieces: > > - Make lilypond locale-independent > > - /input/regression/keys.ly looks bad (Reported by Thomas Morley) > > - /input/regression/utf-8.ly changed

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-26 10:03 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> Probably worth adding: >> >> (display (make-simple-markup "xy")) >> >> results in: >> >> 2.19.51: >> (# xy) >> >> 2.19.52-guile2 >> (# xy) >> Which is technically correct but not

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-25 23:19 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : >> So a separate branch for communication might indeed be a reasonable >> short-term measure. >> > > I agree, but since these patches are a moving target we should choose > one of these two alternative approaches: > > 1. Use only one

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Paul writes: > So I assume (as a non-authority in this area) that the best way to > address the slowdown is to start using guile 2.0's compiler to compile > LilyPond's scheme code. For scm/*.scm, yes. But LilyPond code does a lot by interpreting Scheme code via #... and

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > 2016-11-25 23:19 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > >> - Investigate why lilypond is a lot slower when using guile-2.0 > > This is the current main problem, I'd say. I think it most likely that it is a distributed problem. My personal

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On 11/25/2016 06:13 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: - Investigate why lilypond is a lot slower when using guile-2.0 This is the current main problem, I'd say. From what I've read, the guile 2.0 interpreter is simply slower than the guile 1.8 interpreter (with the trade-off being that 2.0 has a

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-25 23:19 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:33:42 +0100 > David Kastrup wrote: > >> David Kastrup writes: >> >> > Thomas Morley writes: >> > > [...] >> >> with the container and/or LilyDev for guile2 we

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi Antonio! TBH I didn't try to compile lilypond using guile-1.8 with my patches applied, I can give it a go in the next days. I added your patches in numerical order as single commits to my local branch on top of current master and started a "git bisect run" process to investigate which of

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Am 25.11.2016 um 23:19 schrieb Antonio Ospite: stuff to simplify the workflow, attracting more people. It's still tedious to add Antonios patches. How about creating a public branch? I could do this in the evening (if I remember the syntax) What do you think? Shouldn't most of them be able

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:33:42 +0100 David Kastrup wrote: > David Kastrup writes: > > > Thomas Morley writes: > > [...] > >> with the container and/or LilyDev for guile2 we are going to have some > >> stuff to simplify the workflow,

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Jan-Peter Voigt: > Am 24.11.2016 um 16:10 schrieb Antonio Ospite: > > And about the choice between guile 1.8 or 2.0.12/13, it should be > > possible to have both guile-1.8 and guile-2.0 packages installed in the > > same image and then let lilypond choose which one to pick up at > >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

David Kastrup writes: > Thomas Morley writes: > >> 2016-11-24 16:10 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : >>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:03:32 +0100 >>> Federico Bruni wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> with the container and/or LilyDev

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > 2016-11-24 16:10 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : >> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:03:32 +0100 >> Federico Bruni wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > with the container and/or LilyDev for guile2 we are going to have some > stuff to

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-24 16:10 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:03:32 +0100 > Federico Bruni wrote: Hi all, with the container and/or LilyDev for guile2 we are going to have some stuff to simplify the workflow, attracting more people. It's still tedious

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-23 10:51 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley : > Also, I'd like to test with a huge score. I remember there were some > problems with garbage-collection with large files. > > I don't have something to test at hand, I'll ask on the user-list. The thread:

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi Jan-Peter! And about the choice between guile 1.8 or 2.0.12/13, it should be possible to have both guile-1.8 and guile-2.0 packages installed in the same image and then let lilypond choose which one to pick up at configure-time, shoudln't it? I doubt that. You can install guile 1.8 and 2.0

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi Antonio, Am 24.11.2016 um 16:10 schrieb Antonio Ospite: And about the choice between guile 1.8 or 2.0.12/13, it should be possible to have both guile-1.8 and guile-2.0 packages installed in the same image and then let lilypond choose which one to pick up at configure-time, shoudln't it? I

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:03:32 +0100 Federico Bruni wrote: > Il giorno gio 24 nov 2016 alle 8:14, Jan-Peter Voigt > ha scritto: [...] > > There is a another question I have in mind: What would it mean to > > create LilyDev as a container-based-solution? On

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Il giorno gio 24 nov 2016 alle 8:14, Jan-Peter Voigt ha scritto: I am watching the guile-2-threads grow and really do appreciate that! Many thanks to Antonio, Harm, David, Federico, et al for allyour efforts on this! There is a another question I have in mind: What would it

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Il giorno gio 24 nov 2016 alle 7:02, Paul ha scritto: On 11/23/2016 06:09 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: Currently it seems I'm the only one being able to test Antonio's patches. This is not exactly optimal. [...] Having a LilyDev with guile 2.0.12/13 may help. I for one

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

> Not related to the current guile2-problem, because it happens in the > 2.19.51-docs as well: > (1) > The Japanese docs always display a Yen-sign instead of the backslash > in the browser, although copying it into a utf-8-aware editor works > well. > See attached screenshot. > Masamichi-San

RE: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi Harm, I have been wanting to launch into assisting with the guile 2 stuff for a long time. Happy to help. If you can give me some quick pointers offline to the exact set up of the environment we are using for this, I will help out. I have _lots_ of time and a seriously fast machine. Andrew

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi list, I am watching the guile-2-threads grow and really do appreciate that! Many thanks to Antonio, Harm, David, Federico, et al for allyour efforts on this! There is a another question I have in mind: What would it mean to create LilyDev as a container-based-solution? On my laptop and

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On 11/23/2016 06:09 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: Currently it seems I'm the only one being able to test Antonio's patches. This is not exactly optimal. [...] Having a LilyDev with guile 2.0.12/13 may help. I for one would be more likely to help with testing if there were a LilyDev with guile

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-23 9:23 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > > BTW the results are promising, with my latest patchset the UTF-8 > characters should be rendered fine. The images are not pixel perfect > because when using guile-2.0 the floating point numbers in the > postscript output are formatted

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-23 15:52 GMT+01:00 Federico Bruni : > Il giorno mer 23 nov 2016 alle 15:10, Antonio Ospite ha > scritto: >> >> Ah I didn't know about lilydev (https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev). >> >> Updating it to Debian testing aka Stretch (the _next_ Debian stable

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hello, > The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in > that case a debian unstable container is to be used. For info, 2.0.13+1-2 is in debian testing David. pgpjmlS3rvUKR.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Il giorno mer 23 nov 2016 alle 15:10, Antonio Ospite ha scritto: Ah I didn't know about lilydev (https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev). Updating it to Debian testing aka Stretch (the _next_ Debian stable release) will expose people to guile-2.0.13. Federico, AFAICT the current

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:34:05 +0100 David Kastrup wrote: > Antonio Ospite writes: > > > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 > > Thomas Morley wrote: > > > > [...] > >> Hi Antonio, > >> > >> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Federico Bruni writes: > Il giorno mer 23 nov 2016 alle 9:34, David Kastrup ha > scritto: >> The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base >> lilydev >> on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu. >> There is a bit of

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Il giorno mer 23 nov 2016 alle 9:34, David Kastrup ha scritto: The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base lilydev on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu. There is a bit of impetus for getting a hold of the Guile-2.0 issue and I

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

David Kastrup writes: >> I imagine a plethora of users not having 2.0.12 and no reasonable >> chance for average users to get it. > > We'll want to keep compilable with Guile 1.8 for now. When configure > finds Guile less than 2.0.12, it will bomb out. Correction: Guile 2 less

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > 2016-11-23 9:34 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : >> Antonio Ospite writes: >> >>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 >>> Thomas Morley wrote: >>> >>> [...] Hi Antonio, I figured to do

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-23 10:33 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley : > > The regtest-comparison with your recent patches are fine. > No issue visible!! I didn't try a full make doc, but will do this afternoon. (I probably will have some time, without net-acces, though) Also, I'd like to test

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-23 9:34 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Antonio Ospite writes: > >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 >> Thomas Morley wrote: >> >> [...] >>> Hi Antonio, >>> >>> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 >>> and

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-23 9:23 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > > [...] >> Hi Antonio, >> >> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 >> and guile 2.0.13: >> >> For that I had to get back

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Antonio Ospite writes: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > > [...] >> Hi Antonio, >> >> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 >> and guile 2.0.13: >> >> For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: [...] > Hi Antonio, > > I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 > and guile 2.0.13: > > For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master, > then I did 'make

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:49:07 +0100 David Kastrup wrote: > Thomas Morley writes: > > > 2016-11-20 23:23 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > >> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 22:07:39 +0100 > >> Antonio Ospite wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:25:39 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: [...] > Have a look at input/regression/markup-special-characters.ly > Compiling it as standalone is fine even with -dbackend=eps, but it > comes out wrongly in the regtests for both pdf and html. > This could

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-22 10:15 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:16:41 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > > [...] >> I reverted locally "Print floating point variables using a period as >> the decimal separator" and applied your code above. >> I got a

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:16:41 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: [...] > I reverted locally "Print floating point variables using a period as > the decimal separator" and applied your code above. > I got a successful "make LANGS='' doc" > > That's great! > > Next would be a

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > If all this only would not last ages on my weak laptop... Chances are that the second-to-fastest available CPU for the socket in your laptop is quite affordable (the fastest one only if your laptop is really really old). The downside, of

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-21 13:09 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:59:17 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > >> 2016-11-21 10:49 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : >> >> > Can I look at your ./56/lily-44b4b5eb.eps file? >> >> Here you are. >> > > The

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:59:17 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: > 2016-11-21 10:49 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > > > Can I look at your ./56/lily-44b4b5eb.eps file? > > Here you are. > The problem is that there are still some numbers formatted with commas as

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-21 10:49 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > Can I look at your ./56/lily-44b4b5eb.eps file? Here you are. Cheers, Harm lily-44b4b5eb.eps Description: PostScript document ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:37:31 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: > 2016-11-19 16:05 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > [...] > > With this setup your test file should work. > > > The test-file indeed works, but not "make LANGS='' doc" > > Earlier every file in the

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > 2016-11-20 23:23 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : >> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 22:07:39 +0100 >> Antonio Ospite wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 01:12:59 +0100 >>> Thomas Morley wrote: >>> >> [...] >>> >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-19 16:05 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > > I managed to have "make LANGS='' doc" succeed again, there was > a transient failure, but just rerunning the make command worked. > > This is with the patches at: > https://ao2.it/tmp/lilypond-guile2/patches_2016-11-19/ on top of the

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-20 23:23 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 22:07:39 +0100 > Antonio Ospite wrote: > >> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 01:12:59 +0100 >> Thomas Morley wrote: >> > [...] >> > Well, this example gives a gs-error again: >> > >> >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 22:07:39 +0100 Antonio Ospite wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 01:12:59 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > [...] > > Well, this example gives a gs-error again: > > > > \header { title = "ちりぬるを)" } \markup \null > > > > The problem here is

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 01:12:59 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: > Hi, > > for now I looked only at a single problem, the meta-data. (Giving me a > royal headache) > > 2016-11-19 16:05 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > > > The following change fixes the issue at hand:

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi, for now I looked only at a single problem, the meta-data. (Giving me a royal headache) 2016-11-19 16:05 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > The following change fixes the issue at hand: > > - > diff --git

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi, just to confirm my understanding about some previous items. On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:05:47 +0100 Antonio Ospite wrote: [...] > I compared the postscript output of the same lilypond git revision built > with both guile-1.8 (in a debian stable container) and guile-2.0, and by >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Antonio Ospite writes: > AFAICS in guile-2.0 the difference between characters and bytes is > taken very seriously. The problem is that lily/parser.yy and particularly lily/lexer.ll implement robust and fast recognition and interpretation of UTF-8. It transparently maps them to

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-19 16:05 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > But I don't really know what I am talking about here... Speaking of it, the whole encoding-issue is not exactly my prefered topic ... > I still need to clean things up, and ask for advice for better fixes, > but I wanted to report

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 22:24:27 +0100 David Kastrup wrote: > Antonio Ospite writes: > > > - > > (process:18706): Pango-WARNING **: Invalid UTF-8 string passed to > > pango_layout_set_text() > >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:05:22 +0100 Antonio Ospite wrote: [...] > - and than when scm_read() (lily/parse-scm.cc in ^ This is a "then". > internal_ly_parse_scm()) is called to parse the embedded scm, and > the latter is interpreted as Latin1 too. > --

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:24:19 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: [...] > Hi Antonio, > Hi, > as said, no time to dive in deeper, though here some observations (my > test-file attached.) > > - toplevel-markups with special characters working > - ly-identifier with special

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-18 0:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley : > 2016-11-17 13:05 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > Hi Antonio, > > as said, no time to dive in deeper, though here some observations (my > test-file attached.) Aaargh, I pasted

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-17 13:05 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:55:52 +0100 > Thomas Morley wrote: > >> Hi Antonio, >> >> first of all, thanks a lot for working on this! >> >> Regrettable during a working week I have very little time to work on a >>

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Antonio Ospite writes: > - > (process:18706): Pango-WARNING **: Invalid UTF-8 string passed to > pango_layout_set_text() > - > > and in the final

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

> I usually have some spare time on Wednesdays, so... read below. > [...] Excellent news! Thanks a lot, Antonio, for working on this. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:55:52 +0100 Thomas Morley wrote: > Hi Antonio, > > first of all, thanks a lot for working on this! > > Regrettable during a working week I have very little time to work on a > serious issue like this one. > I usually have some spare time on

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

> I have to apologize to the bug team for bypassing procedures a lot > these days, but this one is simple and I can't really wait a lot for > a drain of the pipeline if I want to get a few things in shape > before leaving. As usual: Please proceed! I think we all have full confidence in your

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi Antonio, first of all, thanks a lot for working on this! Regrettable during a working week I have very little time to work on a serious issue like this one. That said: 2016-11-14 13:13 GMT+01:00 Antonio Ospite : > Hi everyone, > > On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:15:52 +0100 > David

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

David Kastrup writes: > Antonio Ospite writes: > >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:07:08 +0100 >> David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> Antonio Ospite writes: >>> >>> > For instance if David, or someone else, could confirm that patch 0005 >>> > [1]

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Antonio Ospite writes: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:07:08 +0100 > David Kastrup wrote: > >> Antonio Ospite writes: >> >> > For instance if David, or someone else, could confirm that patch 0005 >> > [1] actually makes sense I would propose it for inclusion

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:07:08 +0100 David Kastrup wrote: > Antonio Ospite writes: > > > For instance if David, or someone else, could confirm that patch 0005 > > [1] actually makes sense I would propose it for inclusion in lilypond. > > > > Thanks, > >Antonio > >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Antonio Ospite writes: > For instance if David, or someone else, could confirm that patch 0005 > [1] actually makes sense I would propose it for inclusion in lilypond. > > Thanks, >Antonio > > [1] >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Hi everyone, On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:15:52 +0100 David Kastrup wrote: > Thomas Morley writes: > > > Short update: > > I managed to get guile 2.0.13 and guile-2.0-dev for 2.0.13 (grabed it > > from Zesty Zapus which will be Ubuntu 17.04) > > Successful

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > Short update: > I managed to get guile 2.0.13 and guile-2.0-dev for 2.0.13 (grabed it > from Zesty Zapus which will be Ubuntu 17.04) > Successful make with all of Antonios patches (didn't try make doc so far). > > Though, _every_ compilation of a

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-13 9:15 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> So I tried (some unrelated commands omitted) to apply the first four >> patches from >> https://ao2.it/tmp/lilypond-guile2/ >> >> 2200 git checkout master >> 2201 git fetch >> 2202

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > So I tried (some unrelated commands omitted) to apply the first four > patches from > https://ao2.it/tmp/lilypond-guile2/ > > 2200 git checkout master > 2201 git fetch > 2202 git pull -r > 2206 git checkout -b dev/master-my-guile21 >

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-12 23:09 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> 2016-11-12 15:50 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley : >>> 2016-11-12 15:42 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : Thomas Morley writes:

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > 2016-11-12 15:50 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley : >> 2016-11-12 15:42 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : >>> Thomas Morley writes: >>> > The main problem I remember was a coding problem. It

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-12 15:50 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley : > 2016-11-12 15:42 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : >> Thomas Morley writes: >> The main problem I remember was a coding problem. It did not like working with UTF-8 characters. >>> >>>

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-12 15:42 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >>> The main problem I remember was a coding problem. It did not like >>> working with UTF-8 characters. >> >> >> Do you mean the encoding-problem is responsible for the failed >>

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: >> The main problem I remember was a coding problem. It did not like >> working with UTF-8 characters. > > > Do you mean the encoding-problem is responsible for the failed > markup-cyclic-reference.ly? Very unlikely. > Or for the stuck while

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

2016-11-12 13:39 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> Then trying to build the docs: >> make LANGS='' doc >> I.e. a single core compilation for better tracking problems, only english >> docs. >> >> It crashed because of string-filter and

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Thomas Morley writes: > Then trying to build the docs: > make LANGS='' doc > I.e. a single core compilation for better tracking problems, only english > docs. > > It crashed because of string-filter and string-delete changed the > order of arguments in guile2, I

Re: guile-2.0 and debian

Federico Bruni writes: > In case you don't know already, last news about guile2 and debian: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746005#216 > > As you can see, Antonio Ospite is trying to work on it and wrote some > notes: >

  1   2   >