Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

On Fri 04 Mar 2016 at 07:12:38 (-0600), David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 04 Mar 2016 at 09:48:16 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote:
> > David Wright  writes:
> > 
> > > OK. This one is quite pernicious, but depends on having the : at the
> > > beginning of $PATH, which might happen if someone thought the syntax
> > > was meant to be, say, PATH=:patha:pathb:and-so-on:
> > >
> > > $ echo $PATH
> > > :/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:
> > 
> > This is a terrible PATH: it searches the local directory for executables
> > (which one should never ever ever do as it is a security hole you can
> > drive a truck through), and not once, but twice: before everything else
> > and afterwards _again_.
> > 
> > > Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable,
> > > then waits for someone to cd /tmp and copy some files.
> > 
> > I see that was the point you were trying to make, but it does not start
> > like that.
> 
> I do not know what you are referring to with "it" in "it does not start".
> So I'm afraid I don't see the point that your posting is trying to make.

David, don't bother to reply to this post.

I have reviewed this thread and anything I add will be off-list as
these installation issues aren't really the thrust of this list.

My take is:

Bernard: you had some issues installing F and LP. Some of your
compatibility issues were, I suspect, of your own making, but good,
they're resolved. You'd now like to help others by improving the
instructions and writing a piece of software to test the system
and do something automatically about it. Fine, but I think you
underestimate the complexity of that, but if that's your itch,
scratch it by all means. Better (IMO) would be to make the
instructions clearer, carefully distinguishing software that is part
of people's linux distributions and that which is downloaded from
non-linux-distribution sites. I understand if you don't want/have time
to do that.

Urs, Noeck: If I get any ideas on clarifying the instructions,
I'll just send them to you and you can use/ditch them as you like.

David K: I tried to give a context to my demonstration of what people
can do accidently with their $PATH. I'm sorry if that did not come
over. Just stick with my exhortation for giving an example of a
good path alongside any instruction to modify it. Plenty of people
have mucked up their paths in the past; people still ask how they can
add this security hole and get answers---look:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27188856/adding-any-current-directory-to-the-search-path-in-linux
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_%28variable%29 (half-way down)
MSDOS had an implicit . in front of any $PATH including the empty one.

Blöchl Bernhard or BB (whichever hat you're wearing):
Please quote (and read) more carefully. I'm sorry to have criticised
you for both underquoting and overquoting. When I asked which posting,
a timestamp of a reference to the lists.gnu.org would suffice, rather
than 21K of HTML. You know I can read these references because I post
them myself.

So...off-list please.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Bernard]

Hi BB,

I have already explained that I aboslutele do not understand what's 
the sense, the goal, the informativ content of this thread. I 
recommend to ignore that inflated contraproductive nonsense logorrhoea 
thread! Or does anybody see a win for lilypond users? Is it an attempt 
to abuse lilypond installation for a hacking attack? 


I had a problem, it was solved with the help of members of this group. 
Then there was question to prevent this in the future. I tried to help, 
but it became confused.

So confused it results to your above response.

So to all : please stop. And thanks for all your help.

Bernard

On 04-03-16 12:39, BB wrote:

On 04.03.2016 10:05, Bernard wrote:

Hi Jordan and David Wrigth,

Let me tell thank I am confused on what is being said, who has which 
point of view. I could start research in this thread but I would be 
very time consuming, and even then the value of the result is limited.
I get the impression I am not the only one who is confused. And for 
your info, for me everything is already solved a long time ago, this 
discussion what to do for future new users of Frescobaldi and Lilypond.


I do not have any problem and I know many other users not having any 
problem as well. Obviously you try to take problems for granted? I 
only found described problems having not following the usual lilypond 
installation process. The /bin problem thingy (is it really is a 
problem? It is not if you follow the usual installation process. And 
the $PATH is absolutely needless and dangerous! I refer to and agree 
with David Kastrup. I think nobody should open his linux station to 
anybody in this way!


I have already explained that I aboslutele do not understand what's 
the sense, the goal, the informativ content of this thread. I 
recommend to ignore that inflated contraproductive nonsense logorrhoea 
thread! Or does anybody see a win for lilypond users? Is it an attempt 
to abuse lilypond installation for a hacking attack?



What remains for me: A complete installation guide covering up-to-date
versions of both Frescobaldi and Lilypond would be helpful (cf. PS). 
This is a quote of Noeck / Joram


That is not what I wanted to do. I just want a measure system so it 
is total clear what we talk about. To reduce the confusion, which is 
partly created only because the length of the thread.



Yes, but whose installation do you compare it with? Me, running
Debian's F 2.0.13 on Debian's LP 2.18.2 and lilypond's LP 2.19.36
with python-ly installed from Debian's testing distribution? Or
someone else running openSUSE with a different mix? This is a quote 
of David Wrigth
Indeed, that makes it complex. In the end system X does work and 
system Y does not work. This can be compared for differences. With 
one call. The expert, you, reads this report and suggest a changes, 
and execute this one call again. To verify if the change was 
effective. Until there is working system, or except that just a 
specific environment f.e. OpenBSD with a specific installation , 
installation is not possible. That is also important knowledge, no 
need to try something if you know It can not work.



Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable,
then waits for someone to cd /tmp and copy some files. This is a 
quote of David Wrigth
Yes but also lighter. There might be suggestions who both work. On 
with more rights and one with limited rights. Then you can choose the 
one with the most limited rights for security. I have seen a 
suggestion for help


It's likely installed where you told the installer to install it, 
but is

not in your PATH variable. Try setting up your PATH appropriately in
your
~/.bashrc
or whatever startup file may be relevant for your system.
Looks reasonable. It might work, and the advice was written with all 
the positive and constructive intention.


But I found the thread : "Login failure after editing ".bashrc" and 
".profile" " see :http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2190876


Following this advices would cause an additional risk for me. Later I 
got a less drastic intervention advice. Which I followed with success.


So if two solutions are possible, Two different measurements of 
systems who both work, the choose the least demanding one. When 
comparing systems configurations this can be done.


I repeat :

What remains for me: A complete installation guide covering up-to-date

My suggestion would be to :
1) First check if the resources for installation are available
2) Complete installation (guide) This could be limited, because the 
precondition are met before execution.

3) Check if installation was successful , f.e. executing a unit-test.

All these 3 steps could be combined in one. But the first step should 
also be executed separately to find a specific condition which 
requires help of experts, of you.


For me there is doubt. I do realize developing such measuring system 
is complex. And time consuming to build. And I doubt how much need 
there 

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

On Fri 04 Mar 2016 at 09:48:16 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote:
> David Wright  writes:
> 
> > OK. This one is quite pernicious, but depends on having the : at the
> > beginning of $PATH, which might happen if someone thought the syntax
> > was meant to be, say, PATH=:patha:pathb:and-so-on:
> >
> > $ echo $PATH
> > :/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:
> 
> This is a terrible PATH: it searches the local directory for executables
> (which one should never ever ever do as it is a security hole you can
> drive a truck through), and not once, but twice: before everything else
> and afterwards _again_.
> 
> > Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable,
> > then waits for someone to cd /tmp and copy some files.
> 
> I see that was the point you were trying to make, but it does not start
> like that.

I do not know what you are referring to with "it" in "it does not start".
So I'm afraid I don't see the point that your posting is trying to make.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[BB]

On 04.03.2016 10:05, Bernard wrote:

Hi Jordan and David Wrigth,

Let me tell thank I am confused on what is being said, who has which 
point of view. I could start research in this thread but I would be 
very time consuming, and even then the value of the result is limited.
I get the impression I am not the only one who is confused. And for 
your info, for me everything is already solved a long time ago, this 
discussion what to do for future new users of Frescobaldi and Lilypond.


I do not have any problem and I know many other users not having any 
problem as well. Obviously you try to take problems for granted? I only 
found described problems having not following the usual lilypond 
installation process. The /bin problem thingy (is it really is a 
problem? It is not if you follow the usual installation process. And the 
$PATH  is absolutely needless and dangerous! I refer to and agree with 
David Kastrup. I think nobody should open his linux station to anybody 
in this  way!


I have already explained that I aboslutele do not understand what's the 
sense, the goal, the informativ content of this thread. I recommend to 
ignore that inflated contraproductive nonsense logorrhoea thread! Or 
does anybody see a win for lilypond users? Is it an attempt to abuse 
lilypond installation for a hacking attack?



What remains for me: A complete installation guide covering up-to-date
versions of both Frescobaldi and Lilypond would be helpful (cf. 
PS).   This is a quote of Noeck / Joram


That is not what I wanted to do. I just want a measure system so it is 
total clear what we talk about. To reduce the confusion, which is 
partly created only because the length of the thread.



Yes, but whose installation do you compare it with? Me, running
Debian's F 2.0.13 on Debian's LP 2.18.2 and lilypond's LP 2.19.36
with python-ly installed from Debian's testing distribution? Or
someone else running openSUSE with a different mix?This is a 
quote of David Wrigth
Indeed, that makes it complex. In the end system X does work and 
system Y does not work. This can be compared for differences. With one 
call. The expert, you, reads this report and suggest a changes, and 
execute this one call again. To verify if the change was effective. 
Until there is working system, or except that just a specific 
environment f.e. OpenBSD with a specific installation , installation 
is not possible. That is also important knowledge, no need to try 
something if you know It can not work.



Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable,
then waits for someone to   cd /tmp   and copy some files. This is a 
quote of David Wrigth
Yes but also lighter. There might be suggestions who both work. On 
with more rights and one with limited rights. Then you can choose the 
one with the most limited rights for security. I have seen a 
suggestion for help



It's likely installed where you told the installer to install it, but is
not in your PATH variable.  Try setting up your PATH appropriately in
your
~/.bashrc
or whatever startup file may be relevant for your system.
Looks reasonable. It might work, and the advice was written with all 
the positive and constructive intention.


But I found the thread : "Login failure after editing ".bashrc" and 
".profile" " see :http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2190876


Following this advices would cause an additional risk for me. Later I 
got a less drastic intervention advice. Which I followed with success.


So if two solutions are possible, Two different measurements of 
systems who both work, the choose the least demanding one. When 
comparing systems configurations this can be done.


I repeat :

What remains for me: A complete installation guide covering up-to-date

My suggestion would be to :
1) First check if the resources for installation are available
2) Complete installation (guide) This could be limited, because the 
precondition are met before execution.

3) Check if installation was successful , f.e. executing a unit-test.

All these 3 steps could be combined in one. But the first step should 
also be executed separately to find a specific condition which 
requires help of experts, of you.


For me there is doubt. I do realize developing such measuring system 
is complex. And time consuming to build. And I doubt how much need 
there is for a short falsifiable report which compares two systems.


I have no idea of how many installations of Lilypond and Frescobaldi 
there are each month, and how much of them do fail, if this can be 
measured. If this number is limited, it is much better to continue how 
you did it until now.


With regards,

Bernard






On 03-03-16 22:26, Noeck wrote:

Hi Bernard


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 

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Bernard]

Hi Jordan and David Wrigth,

Let me tell thank I am confused on what is being said, who has which 
point of view. I could start research in this thread but I would be very 
time consuming, and even then the value of the result is limited.
I get the impression I am not the only one who is confused. And for your 
info, for me everything is already solved a long time ago, this 
discussion what to do for future new users of Frescobaldi and Lilypond.



What remains for me: A complete installation guide covering up-to-date
versions of both Frescobaldi and Lilypond would be helpful (cf. PS).   This is 
a quote of Noeck / Joram


That is not what I wanted to do. I just want a measure system so it is 
total clear what we talk about. To reduce the confusion, which is partly 
created only because the length of the thread.



Yes, but whose installation do you compare it with? Me, running
Debian's F 2.0.13 on Debian's LP 2.18.2 and lilypond's LP 2.19.36
with python-ly installed from Debian's testing distribution? Or
someone else running openSUSE with a different mix?This is a quote of David 
Wrigth
Indeed, that makes it complex. In the end system X does work and system 
Y does not work. This can be compared for differences. With one call. 
The expert, you, reads this report and suggest a changes, and execute 
this one call again. To verify if the change was effective. Until there 
is working system, or except that just a specific environment f.e. 
OpenBSD with a specific installation , installation is not possible. 
That is also important knowledge, no need to try something if you know 
It can not work.



Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable,
then waits for someone to   cd /tmp   and copy some files. This is a quote of 
David Wrigth
Yes but also lighter. There might be suggestions who both work. On with 
more rights and one with limited rights. Then you can choose the one 
with the most limited rights for security. I have seen a suggestion for 
help



It's likely installed where you told the installer to install it, but is
not in your PATH variable.  Try setting up your PATH appropriately in
your
~/.bashrc
or whatever startup file may be relevant for your system.
Looks reasonable. It might work, and the advice was written with all the 
positive and constructive intention.


But I found the thread : "Login failure after editing ".bashrc" and 
".profile" " see :http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2190876


Following this advices would cause an additional risk for me. Later I 
got a less drastic intervention advice. Which I followed with success.


So if two solutions are possible, Two different measurements of systems 
who both work, the choose the least demanding one. When comparing 
systems configurations this can be done.


I repeat :

What remains for me: A complete installation guide covering up-to-date

My suggestion would be to :
1) First check if the resources for installation are available
2) Complete installation (guide) This could be limited, because the 
precondition are met before execution.

3) Check if installation was successful , f.e. executing a unit-test.

All these 3 steps could be combined in one. But the first step should 
also be executed separately to find a specific condition which requires 
help of experts, of you.


For me there is doubt. I do realize developing such measuring system is 
complex. And time consuming to build. And I doubt how much need there is 
for a short falsifiable report which compares two systems.


I have no idea of how many installations of Lilypond and Frescobaldi 
there are each month, and how much of them do fail, if this can be 
measured. If this number is limited, it is much better to continue how 
you did it until now.


With regards,

Bernard






On 03-03-16 22:26, Noeck wrote:

Hi Bernard


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.

Generally speaking, yes. But I never had problems with the lilypond
shell installer. I agree an up-to-date ppa would be an interesting
option for Ubuntu users. (I use one for other software.) But as always,
someone would have to do it and look after it.


So the message should be "do not us use apt-get because you will
retrieve probably version 2.16.2"

No, because a) there is nothing wrong with getting 2.16 b) you can still
add newer versions, c) which version you get depends on your
distribution. Ubuntu 14.04 is almost 2 years old, so yes the packaged
software is old, too. For instance, Ubuntu 15.10 contains LP 2.18.2.


- 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 

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Urs Liska]

Am 4. März 2016 09:48:16 MEZ, schrieb David Kastrup :
>David Wright  writes:
>
>> OK. This one is quite pernicious, but depends on having the : at the
>> beginning of $PATH, which might happen if someone thought the syntax
>> was meant to be, say, PATH=:patha:pathb:and-so-on:
>>
>> $ echo $PATH
>> :/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:
>
>This is a terrible PATH: it searches the local directory for
>executables
>(which one should never ever ever do as it is a security hole you can
>drive a truck through), and not once, but twice: before everything else
>and afterwards _again_.
>
>> Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable,
>> then waits for someone to cd /tmp and copy some files.
>
>I see that was the point you were trying to make, but it does not start
>like that.

Well, in a way it does as I explicitly asked for that explanation.

Urs

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Kastrup]

David Wright  writes:

> OK. This one is quite pernicious, but depends on having the : at the
> beginning of $PATH, which might happen if someone thought the syntax
> was meant to be, say, PATH=:patha:pathb:and-so-on:
>
> $ echo $PATH
> :/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:

This is a terrible PATH: it searches the local directory for executables
(which one should never ever ever do as it is a security hole you can
drive a truck through), and not once, but twice: before everything else
and afterwards _again_.

> Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable,
> then waits for someone to cd /tmp and copy some files.

I see that was the point you were trying to make, but it does not start
like that.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fwd: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Blöchl Bernhard]

tml 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
 [8]lilypond-user@gnu.org
 [9]https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

   On 03.03.2016 18:08, David Wright wrote:

 On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 09:37:55 (+0100), Blöchl Bernhard wrote:


  Originalnachricht 
 Betreff: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu
 Datum: 03.03.2016 09:03
 Von: Blöchl Bernhard [10]<b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net>
 An: [11]lilypond-user@gnu.org

 The headline in the original post was not correctly positioned! The
 subsequent text to it was NOT written by David Wright but lies in my
 own responsibility. The headline should only referencing the
 citation. Sorry for my mistake. Here the corrected version:

 I did not read the complete thread and after reading the last
 posting I will not do that.

 I have no idea which posting you mean by "last posting". "Last"
 is particularly ambiguous in English; we do not even have the
 distinction in meaning made AIUI by the position of "dernier"
 in French.


 That is a collection of citation of
 unverified storys, opinions and wishes.

 ... So I have no idea of what _your_ opinion refers to, which
 means it's impossible to agree or disagree with you. That's why
 we normally quote what we're referring to on mailing lists.


 I do not understand the
 central problem and how to address it to lilypond? And Frescobaldi
 AFAIK is anothert development team?

 I don't understand why you've written question marks here.
 Are you implying that someone has stated that "you do not understand
 the central problem and how to address it to lilypond" and that you
 disagree with them? If so, who implied it, and where?

 I can't parse the construction "And Frescobaldi as far as I know is
 another development team?". If _you_ don't know what you know, how 
can

 anyone else?


 Am 03.03.2016 06:40, schrieb David Wright:


 But even better, use a apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to
 date your self, without being dependant of Debian.

 For the second time, you have posted that David Wright wrote 
something

 that David Wright didn't. Please take more care with your postings.


 The content and versions of a repository are in the responsibility
 and taste of the package manager(s) and usually can not simply be
 affected by the software developers, say lilypond or frescobaldi
 development team. A repository is a COLLECTION of software for a
 particular linux version

 I agree with all that.


 - you want a "repository" only contending
 lilypond/frescobaldi? Who should do that?

 I don't want anything; this isn't _my_ problem. There was an original
 problem that "Bernard [12]<lilyp...@bernardhulsman.nl>" was having, 
coping

 with mixing an ubuntu distribution with software downloaded from
 elsewhere:
 
[13]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00758.html

 Then there was a discussion about clarifying some instructions, but I
 don't know which instructions were being discussed becaues that 
wasn't

 made clear with a precise reference:
 
[14]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00772.html

 There followed a posting which contained "But even better, use a
 apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to date your self, without
 being dependant of Debian" which is what I commented on:
 
[15]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00773.html

 This posting appeared to me to be muddling up different distributions
 (Debian, ubuntu), different ways of installing software (package
 managers, direct installation of upstream software), software that 
had

 and didn't have (versioned or absolute) dependencies (lilypond,
 frescobaldi, python-ly, pyqt4, pyqt5).

 It did not appear to me that progress was going to be made in
 clarifying instructions (whichever ones are being discussed) unless
 the terms people used were better defined, and naked version numbers
 were avoided particularly as the main players have identical or
 closely identical version numbers at present. It's no effort to write
 LP 2.18.2 or F 2.16.2.


 For clarification best would be to target your problem precisely for
 a simple minded reader.

 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

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 22:02:14 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 03.03.2016 um 21:36 schrieb David Wright:
> > On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 12:41:28 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> > Most people will have ~/bin in their $PATH, as you know. 
> 
> But there *are* distributions that don't have ~/bin at all by default.
> Don't recall where I encountered that, but it happens.

Yes, Debian didn't _create_ it, and doesn't AFAIK. If it already
exists, the default bash startup file will add it to the beginning
of $PATH (whereas I prefer the end).

Perhaps I'm wrong in my assumption that most linux users have written
something, if only a script, that they want to execute once in a while
without wanting to type   path/to/something   or   sh something   and
they will therefore have created and populated ~/bin.

> > For those that
> > don't (and who are unlikely to have edited their PATH before, I think
> > it might be sensible to show an example of what it will look like,
> > emphasising that : is a separator, not a terminator or delimiter. I've
> > known people add a security vulnerability to their system by getting
> > this wrong. (It puts any directory into your $PATH while you're in it.)
> 
> Just out of curiosity: could you give a more concrete hint (without
> exposing anybody to copy-and-paste-risk)?

OK. This one is quite pernicious, but depends on having the : at the
beginning of $PATH, which might happen if someone thought the syntax
was meant to be, say, PATH=:patha:pathb:and-so-on:

$ echo $PATH
:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:
$ ls -l
total 12
-rwxr--r-- 1 luser luser 25 Mar  3 23:29 cp
-rw-r--r-- 1 luser luser 17 Mar  3 23:29 important-file1
-rw-r--r-- 1 luser luser 17 Mar  3 23:29 important-file2
$ cat important-file1
some information
$ cat important-file2
more information
$ cat cp
rm -f cp $* 2> /dev/null
$ which cp[the luser won't type this command of course]
./cp  [I'm just showing you the trigger]
$ cp important-file1 important-file2 ../backup-directory/
$ ls -l
total 0
$ which cp
/bin/cp   [showing normality is restored]
$

cp deletes whatever arguments are passed to it, and also itself.
2> /dev/null means you don't see the error message causd by trying to
delete a directory.

Your enemy puts cp somewhere like /tmp/cp, makes it world-executable,
then waits for someone to   cd /tmp   and copy some files.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Noeck]

Hi Bernard

>> 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.

Generally speaking, yes. But I never had problems with the lilypond
shell installer. I agree an up-to-date ppa would be an interesting
option for Ubuntu users. (I use one for other software.) But as always,
someone would have to do it and look after it.

>> So the message should be "do not us use apt-get because you will
>> retrieve probably version 2.16.2"

No, because a) there is nothing wrong with getting 2.16 b) you can still
add newer versions, c) which version you get depends on your
distribution. Ubuntu 14.04 is almost 2 years old, so yes the packaged
software is old, too. For instance, Ubuntu 15.10 contains LP 2.18.2.

>> - 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 very unclear. Frescobaldi versions depend on versions of
python-ly. But neither the version number of Frescobaldi nor the version
number of python-ly are related to the version of lilypond.
So, as I mentioned you can just install Frescobaldi from the package
repositories and it should come with the correct python-ly. python-ly is
not lilypond.

>> - 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.

There is nothing wrong with this Lilypond version. It is just older than
necessary. In principle you can use any LP version with any Frescobaldi
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.

The Frescobaldi version in Ubuntu is not new either so why should it
know about newer Lilypond versions? It just uses what you provide.

> 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.) 

Not really. I am familiar enough with some maintainers and developers,
that I dare to say that good suggestions on how to improve the
documentation have chances to get in there. I could propose a patch if
we find sensible improvements to the documentation. But so far this
discussion produced more confusion than tangible proposals – at least
from what I understood.

What remains for me: A complete installation guide covering up-to-date
versions of both Frescobaldi and Lilypond would be helpful (cf. PS).

Cheers,
Joram



PS: I know that the following statement will not reach consensus here,
so I am not sure if it makes sense to write it. But privately, this is
how I see it: Most (new) users are probably not used to understand how
different components of their software is related, they view it as one
single system. E.g. Sibelius is the program to create, view, edit, print
sib files. For non-programmers it needs some insights that   Frescobaldi
(GUI and IDE) is separated from Lilypond ("engine"). This is why when
talking about Lilypond I sell it as Frescobaldi and only mention later
that using other editors and pdf viewers is possible.
Choice is good, clear recommendations are even more important for
newcomers. IMHO.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Urs Liska]

Am 03.03.2016 um 21:36 schrieb David Wright:
> On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 12:41:28 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Most people will have ~/bin in their $PATH, as you know. 

But there *are* distributions that don't have ~/bin at all by default.
Don't recall where I encountered that, but it happens.

> For those that
> don't (and who are unlikely to have edited their PATH before, I think
> it might be sensible to show an example of what it will look like,
> emphasising that : is a separator, not a terminator or delimiter. I've
> known people add a security vulnerability to their system by getting
> this wrong. (It puts any directory into your $PATH while you're in it.)

Just out of curiosity: could you give a more concrete hint (without
exposing anybody to copy-and-paste-risk)?

Urs

>
> Example of an example:
>
> $ echo $PATH
> /usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/home/david/bin
> $
>
> Cheers,
> David.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 12:41:28 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote:

> 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.

Most people will have ~/bin in their $PATH, as you know. For those that
don't (and who are unlikely to have edited their PATH before, I think
it might be sensible to show an example of what it will look like,
emphasising that : is a separator, not a terminator or delimiter. I've
known people add a security vulnerability to their system by getting
this wrong. (It puts any directory into your $PATH while you're in it.)

Example of an example:

$ echo $PATH
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/home/david/bin
$

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 12:33:18 (+0100), Bernard wrote:
> 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. Frescobaldi can be
> installed without Lilypond, but will have less, or no value if there
> is no Lilypond version installed. The Lilypond version 2.18.2 and
> Frescobaldi version 2.18.2 has no direct relation with each other.
> Lilypond has no dependency with Frescobaldi. Frescobaldi has no
> (technical or installation) dependency with Lilypond, but it has a
> functional dependency with Lilypond.

I think you have to qualify this statement if you're talking about
linux systems, where most people will be using a distribution of
some sort. You have to point out that you're talking about installing
from source or the independent download, into anywhere but /usr/bin/.
Otherwise there's likely to be a package dependency of F on LP, as
I quoted in Debian earlier in the thread.

> 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.

Yes, but whose installation do you compare it with? Me, running
Debian's F 2.0.13 on Debian's LP 2.18.2 and lilypond's LP 2.19.36
with python-ly installed from Debian's testing distribution? Or
someone else running openSUSE with a different mix?

> 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. 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?

If you can pull it off, that would be most useful. It could run
through a checklist of things that need to be supported and try each
of them out in turn for the expected result.

If it finds functionality that's missing, it could give the name of
the binary/library concerned and suggest ways of finding out which
distribution package (in the first instance) would support it.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fwd: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

eb 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
>  [7]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
>  [8]lilypond-user@gnu.org
>  [9]https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 
>On 03.03.2016 18:08, David Wright wrote:
> 
>  On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 09:37:55 (+0100), Blöchl Bernhard wrote:
> 
> 
>   Originalnachricht 
>  Betreff: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu
>  Datum: 03.03.2016 09:03
>  Von: Blöchl Bernhard [10]<b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net>
>  An: [11]lilypond-user@gnu.org
> 
>  The headline in the original post was not correctly positioned! The
>  subsequent text to it was NOT written by David Wright but lies in my
>  own responsibility. The headline should only referencing the
>  citation. Sorry for my mistake. Here the corrected version:
> 
>  I did not read the complete thread and after reading the last
>  posting I will not do that.
> 
>  I have no idea which posting you mean by "last posting". "Last"
>  is particularly ambiguous in English; we do not even have the
>  distinction in meaning made AIUI by the position of "dernier"
>  in French.
> 
> 
>  That is a collection of citation of
>  unverified storys, opinions and wishes.
> 
>  ... So I have no idea of what _your_ opinion refers to, which
>  means it's impossible to agree or disagree with you. That's why
>  we normally quote what we're referring to on mailing lists.
> 
> 
>  I do not understand the
>  central problem and how to address it to lilypond? And Frescobaldi
>  AFAIK is anothert development team?
> 
>  I don't understand why you've written question marks here.
>  Are you implying that someone has stated that "you do not understand
>  the central problem and how to address it to lilypond" and that you
>  disagree with them? If so, who implied it, and where?
> 
>  I can't parse the construction "And Frescobaldi as far as I know is
>  another development team?". If _you_ don't know what you know, how can
>  anyone else?
> 
> 
>  Am 03.03.2016 06:40, schrieb David Wright:
> 
> 
>  But even better, use a apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to
>  date your self, without being dependant of Debian.
> 
>  For the second time, you have posted that David Wright wrote something
>  that David Wright didn't. Please take more care with your postings.
> 
> 
>  The content and versions of a repository are in the responsibility
>  and taste of the package manager(s) and usually can not simply be
>  affected by the software developers, say lilypond or frescobaldi
>  development team. A repository is a COLLECTION of software for a
>  particular linux version
> 
>  I agree with all that.
> 
> 
>  - you want a "repository" only contending
>  lilypond/frescobaldi? Who should do that?
> 
>  I don't want anything; this isn't _my_ problem. There was an original
>  problem that "Bernard [12]<lilyp...@bernardhulsman.nl>" was having, coping
>  with mixing an ubuntu distribution with software downloaded from
>  elsewhere:
>  [13]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00758.html
>  Then there was a discussion about clarifying some instructions, but I
>  don't know which instructions were being discussed becaues that wasn't
>  made clear with a precise reference:
>  [14]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00772.html
>  There followed a posting which contained "But even better, use a
>  apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to date your self, without
>  being dependant of Debian" which is what I commented on:
>  [15]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00773.html
>  This posting appeared to me to be muddling up different distributions
>  (Debian, ubuntu), different ways of installing software (package
>  managers, direct installation of upstream software), software that had
>  and didn't have (versioned or absolute) dependencies (lilypond,
>  frescobaldi, python-ly, pyqt4, pyqt5).
> 
>  It did not appear to me that progress was going to be made in
>  clarifying instructions (whichever ones are being discussed) unless
>  the terms people used were better defined, and naked version numbers
>  were avoided particularly as the main players have identical or
>  closely identical version numbers at present. It's no effort to write
>  LP 2.18.2 or F 2.16.2.
> 
> 
>  For clarification best would be to target your problem precisely for
>  a simple minded reader.
> 
>  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

Re: Fwd: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[BB]

On 03.03.2016 18:08, David Wright wrote:

On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 09:37:55 (+0100), Blöchl Bernhard wrote:


 Originalnachricht 
Betreff: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu
Datum: 03.03.2016 09:03
Von: Blöchl Bernhard <b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net>
An: lilypond-user@gnu.org

The headline in the original post was not correctly positioned! The
subsequent text to it was NOT written by David Wright but lies in my
own responsibility. The headline should only referencing the
citation. Sorry for my mistake. Here the corrected version:

I did not read the complete thread and after reading the last
posting I will not do that.

I have no idea which posting you mean by "last posting". "Last"
is particularly ambiguous in English; we do not even have the
distinction in meaning made AIUI by the position of "dernier"
in French.


That is a collection of citation of
unverified storys, opinions and wishes.

... So I have no idea of what _your_ opinion refers to, which
means it's impossible to agree or disagree with you. That's why
we normally quote what we're referring to on mailing lists.


I do not understand the
central problem and how to address it to lilypond? And Frescobaldi
AFAIK is anothert development team?

I don't understand why you've written question marks here.
Are you implying that someone has stated that "you do not understand
the central problem and how to address it to lilypond" and that you
disagree with them? If so, who implied it, and where?

I can't parse the construction "And Frescobaldi as far as I know is
another development team?". If _you_ don't know what you know, how can
anyone else?


Well, if you dont know and nobody else, then the question mark is eligible.




Am 03.03.2016 06:40, schrieb David Wright:


But even better, use a apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to
date your self, without being dependant of Debian.

For the second time, you have posted that David Wright wrote something
that David Wright didn't. Please take more care with your postings.


The content and versions of a repository are in the responsibility
and taste of the package manager(s) and usually can not simply be
affected by the software developers, say lilypond or frescobaldi
development team. A repository is a COLLECTION of software for a
particular linux version

I agree with all that.


- you want a "repository" only contending
lilypond/frescobaldi? Who should do that?

I don't want anything; this isn't _my_ problem. There was an original
problem that "Bernard <lilyp...@bernardhulsman.nl>" was having, coping
with mixing an ubuntu distribution with software downloaded from
elsewhere:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00758.html
Then there was a discussion about clarifying some instructions, but I
don't know which instructions were being discussed becaues that wasn't
made clear with a precise reference:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00772.html

If it was not made clear, how should it be clear for me?


There followed a posting which contained "But even better, use a
apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to date your self, without
being dependant of Debian" which is what I commented on:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00773.html
This posting appeared to me to be muddling up different distributions
(Debian, ubuntu), different ways of installing software (package
managers, direct installation of upstream software), software that had
and didn't have (versioned or absolute) dependencies (lilypond,
frescobaldi, python-ly, pyqt4, pyqt5).

It did not appear to me that progress was going to be made in
clarifying instructions (whichever ones are being discussed) unless
the terms people used were better defined, and naked version numbers
were avoided particularly as the main players have identical or
closely identical version numbers at present. It's no effort to write
LP 2.18.2 or F 2.16.2.


For clarification best would be to target your problem precisely for
a simple minded reader.
As you mention, nothing was mafd clear, a precise description would help 
me and others.  is'nt it?

Cheers,
David.


Sorry for wasting your and my time.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fwd: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[BB]

Ciatate of your post from 03.03.2016 09:03

"...I have no idea which posting you mean by "last posting". "Last"
is particularly ambiguous in English; we do not even have the
distinction in meaning made AIUI by the position of "dernier"
in French. ..."

Here is the post I referred to:


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
tohttp://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 tohttp://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



On 03.03.2016 18:08, David Wright wrote:

On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 09:37:55 (+0100), Blöchl Bernhard wrote:


 Originalnachricht 
Betreff: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu
Datum: 03.03.2016 09:03
Von: Blöchl Bernhard <b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net>
An: lilypond-user@gnu.org

The headline in the original post was not correctly

Re: Fwd: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 09:37:55 (+0100), Blöchl Bernhard wrote:
> 
> 
>  Originalnachricht 
> Betreff: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu
> Datum: 03.03.2016 09:03
> Von: Blöchl Bernhard <b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net>
> An: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> 
> The headline in the original post was not correctly positioned! The
> subsequent text to it was NOT written by David Wright but lies in my
> own responsibility. The headline should only referencing the
> citation. Sorry for my mistake. Here the corrected version:
> 
> I did not read the complete thread and after reading the last
> posting I will not do that.

I have no idea which posting you mean by "last posting". "Last"
is particularly ambiguous in English; we do not even have the
distinction in meaning made AIUI by the position of "dernier"
in French.

> That is a collection of citation of
> unverified storys, opinions and wishes.

... So I have no idea of what _your_ opinion refers to, which
means it's impossible to agree or disagree with you. That's why
we normally quote what we're referring to on mailing lists.

> I do not understand the
> central problem and how to address it to lilypond? And Frescobaldi
> AFAIK is anothert development team?

I don't understand why you've written question marks here.
Are you implying that someone has stated that "you do not understand
the central problem and how to address it to lilypond" and that you
disagree with them? If so, who implied it, and where?

I can't parse the construction "And Frescobaldi as far as I know is
another development team?". If _you_ don't know what you know, how can
anyone else?

> Am 03.03.2016 06:40, schrieb David Wright:
> 
> >>But even better, use a apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to
> >>date your self, without being dependant of Debian.

For the second time, you have posted that David Wright wrote something
that David Wright didn't. Please take more care with your postings.

> The content and versions of a repository are in the responsibility
> and taste of the package manager(s) and usually can not simply be
> affected by the software developers, say lilypond or frescobaldi
> development team. A repository is a COLLECTION of software for a
> particular linux version

I agree with all that.

> - you want a "repository" only contending
> lilypond/frescobaldi? Who should do that?

I don't want anything; this isn't _my_ problem. There was an original
problem that "Bernard <lilyp...@bernardhulsman.nl>" was having, coping
with mixing an ubuntu distribution with software downloaded from
elsewhere:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00758.html
Then there was a discussion about clarifying some instructions, but I
don't know which instructions were being discussed becaues that wasn't
made clear with a precise reference:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00772.html
There followed a posting which contained "But even better, use a
apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to date your self, without
being dependant of Debian" which is what I commented on:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00773.html
This posting appeared to me to be muddling up different distributions
(Debian, ubuntu), different ways of installing software (package
managers, direct installation of upstream software), software that had
and didn't have (versioned or absolute) dependencies (lilypond,
frescobaldi, python-ly, pyqt4, pyqt5).

It did not appear to me that progress was going to be made in
clarifying instructions (whichever ones are being discussed) unless
the terms people used were better defined, and naked version numbers
were avoided particularly as the main players have identical or
closely identical version numbers at present. It's no effort to write
LP 2.18.2 or F 2.16.2.

> For clarification best would be to target your problem precisely for
> a simple minded reader.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Bernard]

Hi Urs,


As said, for installing LilyPond there are no further requirements.

Understood.


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).

Without real need, I will not spend time. A simple check is easy, often not 
more then one statement.
But often more then 80%-90% of installation communication is about finding out 
the difference between two systems, one is working and the other is not.
Which to me is a waste of time. And it blocks some people using Lilypond and 
Frescobaldi because they do not have the required perseverance to continue.

With regard,

Bernard



On 03-03-16 12:41, Urs Liska wrote:


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 

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Urs Liska]

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, 

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[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. Frescobaldi can be installed 
without Lilypond, but will have less, or no value if there is no 
Lilypond version installed. The Lilypond version 2.18.2 and Frescobaldi 
version 2.18.2 has no direct relation with each other. Lilypond has no 
dependency with Frescobaldi. Frescobaldi has no (technical or 
installation) dependency with Lilypond, but it has a functional 
dependency with 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.


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. 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?

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 

Fwd: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Blöchl Bernhard]

 Originalnachricht 
Betreff: Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu
Datum: 03.03.2016 09:03
Von: Blöchl Bernhard <b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net>
An: lilypond-user@gnu.org

The headline in the original post was not correctly positioned! The 
subsequent text to it was NOT written by David Wright but lies in my own 
responsibility. The headline should only referencing the citation. Sorry 
for my mistake. Here the corrected version:


I did not read the complete thread and after reading the last posting I 
will not do that. That is a collection of citation of unverified storys, 
opinions and wishes. I do not understand the central problem and how to 
address it to lilypond? And Frescobaldi AFAIK is anothert development 
team?



Am 03.03.2016 06:40, schrieb David Wright:


But even better, use a apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to
date your self, without being dependant of Debian.


The content and versions of a repository are in the responsibility and 
taste of the package manager(s) and usually can not simply be affected 
by the software developers, say lilypond or frescobaldi development 
team. A repository is a COLLECTION of software for a particular linux 
version - you want a "repository" only contending lilypond/frescobaldi? 
Who should do that?


For clarification best would be to target your problem precisely for a 
simple minded reader.





___
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

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Blöchl Bernhard]

Am 03.03.2016 06:40, schrieb David Wright:

I did not read the complete thread and after reading the last posting I 
will not do that. That is a collection of citation of unverified storys, 
opinions and wishes. I do not understand the central problem and how to 
address it to lilypond? And Frescobaldi AFAIK is anothert development 
team?



But even better, use a apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to
date your self, without being dependant of Debian.


The content and versions of a repository are in the responsibility and 
taste of the package manager(s) and usually can not simply be affected 
by the software developers, say lilypond or frescobaldi development 
team. A repository is a COLLECTION of software for a particular linux 
version - you want a "repository" only contending lilypond/frescobaldi? 
Who should do that?


For clarification best would be to target your problem precisely for a 
simple minded reader.





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

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

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Bernard]

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.
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.


- 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.


I hope it does help others as well.

Thanks,

Bernard


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?

Where did we loose you?

Best,
Joram

___
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

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Bernard]

Hi Noeck,

Very good idea. I am happy to help.

First of all  the page : http://frescobaldi.org/download
For me that page is in Dutch, so I am not 100% sure what you can see or 
read. I prefer the Wikipedia style, you can pin-point to a specific 
page, in a specific language, most often English. Which can be correct, 
or incorrect but never be inconsistent with itself. (I like robustness).


For me writes (in Dutch) :

--


   Linux

De meeste Linux-distributies hebben Frescobaldi in het pakketbeheer 
opgenomen. Op de Debian-gebaseerde distributies zoals Ubuntu volstaat 
een eenvoudig commando |sudo apt-get install frescobaldi|.


Mocht Frescobaldi niet voorhanden zijn dan kan het vrij eenvoudig van 
broncode geïnstalleerd worden, zie onder.



   Van broncode installeren

...

---

Short translation.
use :

|sudo apt-get install frescobaldi|

It should mention version 2.16.2 would (can be) installed. This is weird 
because the website itself mentions 2.18.2 (I do not get what I expect 
to get).
The best solution would be of course that 2.18.2 would be installed 
automatic. But that might be outside your or Frescobaldi's control. If 
not add the info what you gave me.


Then a sentencence "it Frescobaldi is not available ... " (for me 
fresbaldi was available but not the correct version) "then it easy can 
be installed from source", with the instruction how to install from 
source. But that causes the depencies hell for me. It is not easy, and 
the instructions to do so are incorrect, or incomplete.


I hope that does help.

Bernard






for you it might be a bi

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?

Where did we loose you?

Best,
Joram

___
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

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Malte Meyn]

Am 27.02.2016 um 19:11 schrieb Noeck:

- Should it mention the --prefix option?


IMO: Yes, and maybe the possibility of installing as root; these options 
seem to be commonly unknown.



- Should it mention that you can have several versions installed in
   parallel?


Would be nice, I didn’t know that for a long time ;)

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Noeck]

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?

Where did we loose you?

Best,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Bernard]

Wow, Joram. Thank you very much. Did this work.

Update the installation documentation with your info would help very much.

Greetings

Bernard

On 27-02-16 18:14, Noeck wrote:

Hi Bernard,

Am 27.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Bernard:

Is there a easy way to install Frescobaldi and Lilypond 2.18.2 on Ubuntu
14.04? If so how?

Yes. Just install Frescobaldi as you did. As you wrote, you get LilyPond
2.16 with it. But that does not hurt. You can then download
the stable version 2.18.2 from here http://lilypond.org/unix.html
or the dev version 2.19.36 from here http://lilypond.org/development.html
and install it with

sh lilypond-2.19.36-1.linux-*.sh --prefix=/home/$USER/whereever/you/want

Then in Frescobaldi Edit > Settings, LilyPond-Settings you can add the
newly installed version in addition to the probably listed 2.16 version.
You can make it default (on the right) and use 2.18 or 2.19 happily ever
after :)

Cheers,
Joram

___
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

Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[Noeck]

Hi Bernard,

Am 27.02.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Bernard:
> Is there a easy way to install Frescobaldi and Lilypond 2.18.2 on Ubuntu
> 14.04? If so how?

Yes. Just install Frescobaldi as you did. As you wrote, you get LilyPond
2.16 with it. But that does not hurt. You can then download
the stable version 2.18.2 from here http://lilypond.org/unix.html
or the dev version 2.19.36 from here http://lilypond.org/development.html
and install it with

sh lilypond-2.19.36-1.linux-*.sh --prefix=/home/$USER/whereever/you/want

Then in Frescobaldi Edit > Settings, LilyPond-Settings you can add the
newly installed version in addition to the probably listed 2.16 version.
You can make it default (on the right) and use 2.18 or 2.19 happily ever
after :)

Cheers,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user