Am 03.03.2016 um 12:33 schrieb Bernard: > Hi David, > > Thanks for your, and also others, replies Lilypond and Frescbaldi > works for me now, but this effort of you and others is meant to let > Frescobadi and Lilypond be installed easily for everybody. I feel this > effort is good. And I would like to help. > > Lets go one step back. The mail is about dependencies. Software X, > with version Y should work. Should work; a tricky statement. A lot of > discussions are communicating about versions, and installations steps > and results on that steps. The knowledge is with you all, but how to > easily communicate this knowledge with beginners using Lilypond and > Frescobaldi. How do you know precise what the status is of the > computer of the person who asked the question? > > Let me make a summery of my knowledge, please correct me I am wrong. > As far as I can tell Lilypond can be installed without Frescobaldi, > and does not require Frescobadli to be used.
Correct. > Frescobaldi can be installed without Lilypond, but will have less, or > no value if there is no Lilypond version installed. Correct. > The Lilypond version 2.18.2 and Frescobaldi version 2.18.2 has no > direct relation with each other. Yes, it's a mere coincidence that they *right now* happen to be the same. > Lilypond has no dependency with Frescobaldi. Yes. > Frescobaldi has no (technical or installation) dependency with > Lilypond, but it has a functional dependency with Lilypond. Yes. Frescobaldi is one possible "frontend" for LilyPond. > > Installation troubles is not unique to Lilypond and frustrates me. I > do not want to check my self what my system resources are in detail. > And have to find a way to retrieve those resources. On the other hand, > you should not spend valuable time to figure out what resources a user > has. Just compare your installation with there installation and it > must (not should) work. Of course systems are never equal, that make > comparing more complicated. But also more attractive to be automated. The LilyPond installation is really trouble-less, and I have the feeling that all the confusion came up because someone mixed LilyPond and Frescobaldi. If you don't want to install LilyPond using apt-get (for example because you are recommended to use a newer version) you can simply download the installation script and run it using "sh path/to/downloaded/script.sh". This will install LilyPond locally in your user account. There are no further dependencies or the need of administrator rights. The only thing that *may* be needed is to add the ~/bin directory to your $PATH. > > I am a Python programmer and already thinking about these problems a > lot. I might develop an open source program to do that. If the > resources check will be Ok Lilypond always can be installed according > to the instruction. So not should, but is. Of course first knowledge > has to be gathered of knowledgeable people like you to say in detail > what is required. As said, for installing LilyPond there are no further requirements. > And user will execute that test, and it might be that sometimes a > specific configuration still does not work. This info will be added, > so the test will be more accurate, using all the info users might share. > In short the output should be falsifiability ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ). "Should work" is not > falsifiable. "Does work" is. > > This is a lot of work, first because the program itself should have > none or as less as possible dependencies itself. Second the user > interfaces should very user friendly. > > Is there interest for such a support program for Lilypond and > Frescobaldi? You should definitely get in touch with Sharon Rosner (also on this list) because he has done a lot in that direction recently (at least for LilyPond). Best Urs > > With regards, > > Bernard > > On 03-03-16 06:40, David Wright wrote: >> On Sun 28 Feb 2016 at 08:29:52 (+0100), Bernard wrote: >>> Hi Noeck, >>> >>> Second reply, I was not reading to careful. >>> >>> http://lilypond.org/unix.html before? There is a small "Install" >>> section. What was missing for you? >>> >>> Yes I saw that, but it was missing install from shell. I really >>> prefer using apt-get because I have bad experience with download >>> and install because of the depencies hell. >>> So the message should be "do not us use apt-get because you will >>> retrieve probably version 2.16.2" >>> But even better, use a apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to >>> date your self, without being dependant of Debian. >> I'm not sure what Debian has to do with all this. I thought you were >> using ubuntu (in the subject line). >> >> The current (jessie/stable) version of LilyPond (LP) is 2.18.2. >> The current (jessie/stable) version of Frescobaldi (F) is 2.0.13. >> >> AIUI there is no LP version dependency of Debian's F 2.0.13: >> Depends: python (>= 2.7), python (<< 2.8), lilypond, >> python-poppler-qt4, python-qt4, python-pypm, tango-icon-theme >> >> I have tried out Debian's F with lilypond.org's LP 2.19.36 with no >> problems AFAICT. >> >>> Like : https://launchpad.net/~frescobaldi/+archive/ubuntu/ppa (but >>> the status is unknown, and out of date) >>> >>> This info is inconsistent with the Frescobaldi info, and my >>> assumption was Frescobaldi was correct. Which was wrong. >>> >>> - Should it mention the --prefix option? >>> >>> It would help, for me that was not crucial. >>> >>> - Should it mention that you can have several versions installed in >>> parallel? >>> >>> Yes it sure does. Because I had version 2.16.2 was installed and >>> Frescobaldi urge to uninstall previous version of python-ly because >>> it can cause inconsistency. Unfortunately I can not recall where I >>> found that info. >> This is presumably F-speak. AFAIK Debian has only packaged this as >> python3-ly and it's not in jessie/stable. This may be why the latter's >> version of F is old. >> >>> - Was only the Frescobaldi settings part new to you? Should it be >>> mentioned? >>> >>> Yes it would. Installing Frescobaldi does install Lilypond, which is >>> very convenient, if it was the correct Lilypond version. >>> Frescobaldi should mention only the old version is installed, and go >>> the the Lilypond website for info how to install Lilypond 2.18.2. >> It's not clear to me what is meant by "correct LP version" or >> "Frescobaldi should mention...". Earlier in the thread, Joram points >> to http://lilypond.org/unix.html and implies that he has something to >> do with its maintenance. (See below.) But that's for LP. There's also >> http://frescobaldi.org/download which has instructions about >> installing F's dependencies. Is that the page you wish to improve? >> If so, you have to bear in mind that people's idea of "correct LP >> version" could vary widely. >> >> On that page, there is a link to http://frescobaldi.org/links#distros >> which seems to be very out of date. For example it mentions >> Debian "testing" with a link to >> http://packages.debian.org/nl/squeeze/editors/frescobaldi >> That's about six years or three distributions out of date. >> >> I can't find any statement that says you don't need a specific version >> of LP to install with a given version of F. It just so happens that at >> the moment the stable version of LP (2.18.2) is the same as the >> stable version of F (2.18.2 since December 26th, 2015). Perhaps >> this is all the more reason to point out that LP from 2.16 to 2.19 >> will all run with F 2.18.2 (and older versions too). >> >>> On 27-02-16 19:11, Noeck wrote: >>>> Hi Bernard, >>>> >>>> Am 27.02.2016 um 18:54 schrieb Bernard: >>>>> Wow, Joram. Thank you very much. Did this work. >>>> Glad it helped you. >>>> >>>>> Update the installation documentation with your info would help >>>>> very much. >>>> There was a similar question just a few days ago, so I take this >>>> request >>>> for improvement seriously. Did you find the Linux download page >>>> http://lilypond.org/unix.html before? There is a small "Install" >>>> section. What was missing for you? >>>> >>>> - Should it mention the --prefix option? >>>> - Should it mention that you can have several versions installed in >>>> parallel? >>>> - Was only the Frescobaldi settings part new to you? Should it be >>>> mentioned? >> Cheers, >> David. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user