On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:09:57 -0700
Don Armstrong <d...@donarmstrong.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> > I tried compiling lilypond with guile-2.0 from Debian unstable, and
> > building the binaries works, and some simple input file worked too.
> Yes, but it fails for more complicated input files, as evidenced by the
> failure to build the documentation.

I also tried to build the latest code from upstream:

 $ git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git lilypond.git
 $ cd lilypond.git/
 $ git checkout dev/janneke/wip-guile2
 $ git rebase master
 $ git apply ../lilypond/debian/patches/use_debians_help2man
 $ git apply ../lilypond/debian/patches/support_guile_2
 $ ./autogen.sh --disable-checking --enable-debugging --enable-guile2 
--disable-optimising --prefix=$PWD/build
 $ make && make doc-stage-1

And I get the same result.

> I'm not sure if this is a case of a guile bug or a lilypond bug, though.

I don't know that either.

However I could reproduce the issue from "make doc-stage-1" with just
this file:

\version "2.19.50"

\sourcefilename "measure-counter.ly"

\relative c' {
  \repeat unfold 5 {
    a4 b c d

\layout {
  \context {
    \consists #Measure_counter_engraver

So it looks like this particular issue is triggered by
scm/scheme-engravers.scm which is where Measure_counter_engraver is

I'll have to learn some more guile to see if I can reduce the test
case further.

Also, when looking at the current status, I found that one of the
blockers was about those "Mark procedures"[1,2], and that the bug has been
solved in guile 2.0.12, see [3,4].

The issue from "make doc-stage-1" seems unrelated to that, tho.


[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2015-11/msg00003.html
[2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2016-06/msg00024.html
[3] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19883

Antonio Ospite

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Reply via email to