Am Samstag, den 29.08.2020, 14:14 +0200 schrieb bart deruyter: > Thanks for the update, I'll look into how I can change my document so > it uses lyluatex only. I used lyluatex to include complete scores in > my document, not for single musical signs, for that I used > lilyglyphs.
That's the idea, yes. A workaround is to use lyluatex with insert=bare-inline, which includes the music without a staff. The significant advantage of this approach is that it doesn't have to choose between Emmentaler glyphs and composed music. > Actually I'm considering to drop the latex road and switch to > libreoffice, for one big important reason: epub, and I need the epub > format because of the pandemic. I expect more Covid-19 related > shutdowns of the schools I work for, and my students use mobile > devices very often. On these pdf's are often not good, they don't > scale good, epub does. > > There is one important reason to keep lilyglyphs: compatibility with > older documents. Indeed. I would prefer keeping lilyglyphs available. But I'm afraid there are issues beyond the Python dependency (which shouldn't be too complicated after all). I had started fiddling around with a LuaLaTeX- only version making use of new functionality, and IIRC I got stuck with various issues. Maybe the best way to go forward would be to reset lilyglyphs to the last released version and simply update the Python stuff ... I hope to find the time to look inzto that. Urs > If I get what I need from lyluatex it's OK for me personally to drop > support for it, I haven't used it that often, I can handle fixing > that, but I doubt I'm the only one having documents using > lilyglyphs. > I do revisit older files too and when my pdf's fail to compile > because of issues like these, needing to update something urgently, I > think everybody can agree that is not a very happy moment. > I was lucky it was not urgent. I really can't believe I'm the only > one having used lilyglyphs, so I'm afraid, dropping support for it > all together will result in many 'not very happy moments'. > > grtz, > Bart > https://esmiltania.be > On Twitter > On Google+ > > > Op vr 28 aug. 2020 om 22:06 schreef Urs Liska <[email protected]> > : > > Hi Bart, > > thanks for reminding. > > Am Freitag, den 28.08.2020, 21:20 +0200 schrieb bart deruyter: > > > Hi all, > > > I would need to start working on my project again, using luatex, > > > lilypond, lyluatex and lilyglyphs. But lilyglyphs appears to be > > > missing from the ubuntu packages. This summer I upgraded to 20.04 > > > though, and I found out to my surprise, lilyglyphs is missing. It > > > is present in 'eoan' though. > > > > > > I already contacted the developer but only heard from him it is > > > missing indeed and he did not know why either. > > > Maybe someone here knows what has been going on. > > > > I asked on the texlive mailing list, and I got an answer, but I > > didn't manage following through > > Am Freitag, den 03.07.2020, 07:41 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: > > > > Hi Urs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone posted an issue that lilyglyphs.sty seems to be > > > > missing in > > > > > > TeX > > > > > > Live after updating to Ubuntu 20.04. > > > > > > > > > > > > And in Debian. Because it depends on Python2 the last time I > > > checked, > > > > > > > > and Python2 programs are not acceptable anymore in Debian and > > > Ubuntu: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my Debian package building config file (ignore the syntax > > > > around) > > > > > > > > # python3 purge - blacklist all packages that don't > > > have py3 > > > > support > > > > > > > > blacklist;tpm;ebong;* > > > > > > > > blacklist;tpm;de-macro;* > > > > > > > > blacklist;tpm;lilyglyphs;* > > > > > > > > blacklist;tpm;pygmentex;* > > > > > > > > blacklist;tpm;sympytexpackage;* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Update to Python3 version of the scripts is necessary. > > > > So the workaround would be to either update the helper scripts to > > Python 3 or to drop these scripts. Off the top of my head I don't > > know how important these scripts actually are or how complex it > > would be to update them. > > They are used to create sets of new notation elements. IIRC.My > > personal gut feeling would be to drop support for lilyglyphs > > altogether because lyluatex can do everything lilyglyphs can, and > > better - i.e. without the need for pre-compiled PDFs. But - and > > that's a big but - the advantage of lilyglyphs is that it doesn't > > need to run LilyPond. *I* will always have LilyPond around, but for > > a general audience this would be a major limitation, I think. > > Opinions? > > Urs > > > https://esmiltania.be > > > On Twitter > > > On Google+ > > >
