On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 09:32:50PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Holmes" > <[email protected]> > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival" > ><[email protected]> > >To: "Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> > > >>This is **not** the website. That's a copy of the "web" manual, > >>but it's built with a completely different mechanism. > > > >AFAICS it's the only version of the web material that looks like > >the real website - images, css, etc, included. > > Thinking about this a little further - part of the problem is that > make website doesn't do anything like make the website. It just > creates the html files. It really ought to put the images and css > files in the right place, fix up the links etc.
It does do this! -- if you have stuff in $HOME/lilypond/media/ > I'm sure this would cause the normal difficulties about getting > it to work, but a) I don't think doing this would add much to > the run time of make website and b) it's really what should > happen. You agree? Problem: - webserver does not have imagemagick - webserver does not have lilypond - webserver certainly cannot compile lilypond Hence the $HOME/lilypond/media/ stuff. I would like to put those in a separate git repository, so that it would be easier to create the website (just point a variable at your version of that other repository, instead of having to manually create $HOME/lilypond/media/ yourself). But that step will be discussed in GOP-PROP 11, which is still 2 weeks off (depending on how much time I spend on maintenance and build issues). In the short-term, I think it would be extremely helpful if you could create the $HOME/lilypond/media stuff, then create the website from a blank build tree -- convince yourself that you can/will get the full website without running make or make doc. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
