On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:09 AM K. Blum <benbigno...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 30.03.2022 um 17:59 schrieb Carl Sorensen: > > > But when I look at the code in OOoLilyPond/LilyPond.xba > <https://github.com/OOoLilyPond/OOoLilyPond/blob/master/extension/OOoLilyPond/LilyPond.xba> > I see that > > 1. There is a way to check the LilyPond version > 2. The code already modifies include statements to add an appropriate > path > 3. The code builds the command used to call lilypond > > Yes, that's true. > > As long as a modification of *how LilyPond is called on the command line* > is sufficient, there is no problem at all. > Would that be possible? >
I don't know. But the problem identified in the issue is related to adding a new lilypond option (-dlilypondbookoutput), which I assume lilypond-book calls but OOoLilyPond does not. If I were trying to solve this problem, that's where I would look to start. I suspect that the new option should be included when calling lilypond. But I have no experience with using OOoLilyPond, so I don't know this for sure. > > From what I read in Jean's response and on the GitLab issue page, I get > the impression that it would be necessary to change the content of the *.ly > files themselves. Is that correct? > I think that is not true. Han-Wen said that the scheme code needed for compatibility with previous versions was two ly:set-option calls. And ly:set-option calls are available from the command line: (See the Usage Manual) <https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/usage/command_002dline-usage#advanced-command-line-options-for-lilypond> . HTH, Carl
