On Monday, 29 November 1999, Karl Eichwalder writes:
> "Howard E. Motteler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Ekkehard Ellmann suggested simply
> | reverting to SuSE 6.1, and I'll give that a try, at least on a
> | temporary partition, to compare libraries.
>
> I've had working lilypond binaries on 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3pre --
> unfortunately on the final release of 6.3 it segfaults. Until now, I
> don't know the reason why.
Which version? Do you have a stack trace? We were talking about a
segfault without stack trace, before main () is entered.
> BTW, I never know, which lilypond version is considered the stable
> version. The one, you'll find at ftp.gnu.org?
We loosely follow the kernel conventions, currently 1.3 is development,
1.2.17 is latest stable. Get it from ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/GNU/LilyPond, or
ftp.lilypond.org (mirror). The pages at GNU are not maintained by us,
they may lag a bit behind, they should be updated to 1.2.17 sometime.
> Thanks for any pointer
> -- I'll try to help to solve the problem.
The only thing I can say is, I had similar looking problems with an
ill-administred, partly upgraded RedHat 5.2 box. I didn't want to
think or bother with it, upgrading egcs/libstdc++ didn't help. So,
I decided to upgrade anything that could have any influence:
egcs, libstdc++, binutils, glibc and *-devel from RedHat 6.1, and
all was fine (guile: lily1.2 ->guile1.3, lily1.3->guile1.3.4)
You may give that a try. If you do, let us know the outcome of that.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/ | http://www.lilypond.org/
