Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 29 Mar 2009, at 16:28, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: I mean this link: I have done something similar for Scala, which uses Gtk, which depends on Pango I think (at least Scala uses it

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 3/29/09 7:10 AM, "Hans Aberg" wrote: > On 28 Mar 2009, at 21:05, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > >> I use a self-compiled version for x86, that I made by following >> Nicolas >> Sceaux's instructions. > > If you mean the Mac OS X link on > > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/topdo

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 28 Mar 2009, at 21:05, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: I use a self-compiled version for x86, that I made by following Nicolas Sceaux's instructions. If you mean the Mac OS X link on http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/topdocs/INSTALL#Compiling-from-source it is dead. Also the Bison v

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 3/28/09 1:04 PM, "Hans Aberg" wrote: > On 28 Mar 2009, at 17:23, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > Hi Hans, GUB stands for Grand Unified Builder and it is a project that was born with lilypond. Please check the web page Graham mentioned http://lilypond.org/gub/ This lilyp

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 28 Mar 2009, at 17:23, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: Hi Hans, GUB stands for Grand Unified Builder and it is a project that was born with lilypond. Please check the web page Graham mentioned http://lilypond.org/gub/ This lilypond builder has some kind of "all in one egg" approach and it provides a

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

Am 28.03.2009 um 16:30 schrieb Cláudia Soares: On 2009/03/28, at 14:59, Graham Percival wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:47:43PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: I'd quite like it to work easily on OSX, although I think that convert-ly is much more important than lilypond-book -- any OSX user

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 3/28/09 9:17 AM, "Hans Aberg" wrote: > On 28 Mar 2009, at 15:51, Cláudia Soares wrote: > >> Hi Hans, GUB stands for Grand Unified Builder and it is a project >> that was born with lilypond. Please check >> the web page Graham mentioned http://lilypond.org/gub/ >> >> This lilypond builder

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 28 Mar 2009, at 15:59, Graham Percival wrote: I'd quite like it to work easily on OSX, although I think that convert-ly is much more important than lilypond-book -- any OSX user who uses LaTeX will have no problem manually changing the #!/usr/bin/foo although they will rightly be annoyed by

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/28, at 14:59, Graham Percival wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:47:43PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: I'd quite like it to work easily on OSX, although I think that convert-ly is much more important than lilypond-book -- any OSX user who uses LaTeX will have no problem manually chang

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 28 Mar 2009, at 15:51, Cláudia Soares wrote: Hi Hans, GUB stands for Grand Unified Builder and it is a project that was born with lilypond. Please check the web page Graham mentioned http://lilypond.org/gub/ This lilypond builder has some kind of "all in one egg" approach and it provides

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:47:43PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: > > On 2009/03/28, at 13:46, Graham Percival wrote: >> >> Also, convert-ly requires decorator functions (I think that was >> the name), which are another 2.4 feature. >> > decorators are another issue. No back compatibility in python <

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/28, at 14:44, Hans Aberg wrote: On 28 Mar 2009, at 15:14, Graham Percival wrote: I found page for Mac OS X, though somewhat dated (2005), which actually suggests #!/usr/bin/env python http://developer.apple.com/internet/opensource/ opensourcescripting.html Also, MacPorts has

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/28, at 13:46, Graham Percival wrote: Also, convert-ly requires decorator functions (I think that was the name), which are another 2.4 feature. decorators are another issue. No back compatibility in python < 2.4. Sometimes I wonder why are we coding python if it changes so much...

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 28 Mar 2009, at 15:14, Graham Percival wrote: I found page for Mac OS X, though somewhat dated (2005), which actually suggests #!/usr/bin/env python http://developer.apple.com/internet/opensource/opensourcescripting.html Also, MacPorts has Python, on my system (Mac OS X 10.5.6 PPC G4):

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 03:04:11PM +0100, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 28 Mar 2009, at 13:18, Graham Percival wrote: > >> That would be great! Leopard has python 2.5.1 by default, so >> there's no problem there. Tiger uses 2.3.5, which does *not* >> support lilypond-book and convert-ly. >> (we use set(

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 28 Mar 2009, at 13:18, Graham Percival wrote: Nevertheless, I can work on that issue concerning the mac osx lilypond. I have one tiger ppc and one leopard intel, so i'll check compat for both OSes and architectures. That would be great! Leopard has python 2.5.1 by default, so there's n

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:46:06PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: > > On 2009/03/28, at 12:18, Graham Percival wrote: >> Tiger uses 2.3.5, which does *not* >> support lilypond-book and convert-ly. >> (we use set(), which was introduced in python 2.4) > You need 2.4 just because of the set container

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/28, at 12:18, Graham Percival wrote: Tiger uses 2.3.5, which does *not* support lilypond-book and convert-ly. (we use set(), which was introduced in python 2.4) You need 2.4 just because of the set container? If yes, you could have imported Sets and used the set=Sets() constructor

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:08:27PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: > > On 2009/03/28, at 11:54, Graham Percival wrote: > >> The only problem is that we don't distribute python for OSX, and >> OSX has its own issues with python. I'm not certain /why/ we >> don't ship python on OSX, but I *am* certain

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/28, at 11:58, Graham Percival wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 06:51:28PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: On 2009/03/27, at 14:43, Graham Percival wrote: Claudia: if you could produce a patch for this, it would be great. Unfortunately, no action can be taken until/unless somebody can

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/28, at 11:54, Graham Percival wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 07:09:28PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: On 2009/03/26, at 14:54, John Mandereau wrote: Graham Percival a écrit : Now, I'll admit that we have very few lilypond users on OpenServer and Unicos (WTM is Unicos, anyway?!).

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 06:51:28PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: > > On 2009/03/27, at 14:43, Graham Percival wrote: > >> Claudia: if you could produce a patch for this, it would be great. >> Unfortunately, no action can be taken until/unless somebody can >> fix it. > > I'm not sure if I understood

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 07:09:28PM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: > > On 2009/03/26, at 14:54, John Mandereau wrote: > >> Graham Percival a écrit : >>> Now, I'll admit that we have very few lilypond users on OpenServer >>> and Unicos (WTM is Unicos, anyway?!). And although redhat uses >>> /bin, as l

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/26, at 14:54, John Mandereau wrote: Graham Percival a écrit : Now, I'll admit that we have very few lilypond users on OpenServer and Unicos (WTM is Unicos, anyway?!). And although redhat uses /bin, as long as there's a symlink it should work. It sounds like there is no ideal solut

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/27, at 14:43, Graham Percival wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:54:41PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote: Graham Percival a écrit : John, could you change TARGET_PYTHON to be "/usr/bin/env python" for all Linux and OSX builds? Certainly not for Linux binaries, which include Python. IW

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:54:41PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote: > Graham Percival a écrit : >> John, could you change TARGET_PYTHON to be "/usr/bin/env python" >> for all Linux and OSX builds? >> > Certainly not for Linux binaries, which include Python. IWBN for MacOS > X builds, but this > i

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 26 Mar 2009, at 02:26, Cláudia Soares wrote: One info source about shebangs can be found at http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/ For Mac Os X 10.5.6 PPC G4, I got: $ ./invoker.sh argv[0]: "/tmp/showargs" argv[1]: "-1" argv[2]: "-2" argv[3]: "-3" argv[4]: "./invoker.sh" Hans

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

Graham Percival wrote Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:13 PM Now, I'll admit that we have very few lilypond users on OpenServer and Unicos (WTM is Unicos, anyway?!). A bit off topic, but Unicos is the OS on some high performance computers from Cray Research: http://www.cray.com/home.aspx . Not m

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/25, at 12:10, Graham Percival wrote: LSB To me, it seems desirable that an uneducated user can run lilypond- book without messing up with the script itself. In the vast majority of uneducated users in the unix world you might find mostly standard linux distros (ubuntu and the

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 2009/03/25, at 12:10, Graham Percival wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:41:04PM +, Claudia wrote: #!/usr/bin/env python in order to run in all today's unix systems, including Mac OS X. Using this shebang is a great way to portability. I believe that some systems use /bin/env ? Or

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

Graham Percival a écrit : Now, I'll admit that we have very few lilypond users on OpenServer and Unicos (WTM is Unicos, anyway?!). And although redhat uses /bin, as long as there's a symlink it should work. It sounds like there is no ideal solution, but AFAIK Python is shipped with all GUB b

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On 24 Mar 2009, at 21:41, Claudia wrote: Please, replace the first line in lilypond-book: #!/usr/bin/python by #!/usr/bin/env python in order to run in all today's unix systems, including Mac OS X. Using this shebang is a great way to portability. These two are not the same - the latter ex

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:26:35AM +, Cláudia Soares wrote: > > On 2009/03/25, at 12:10, Graham Percival wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:41:04PM +, Claudia wrote: >>> >>> #!/usr/bin/env python >> >> See previous discussions about this: >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-de

Re: lilypond-book is not flavor independent

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:41:04PM +, Claudia wrote: > > #!/usr/bin/env python > > in order to run in all today's unix systems, including Mac OS X. > > Using this shebang is a great way to portability. I believe that some systems use /bin/env ? Or has this been stabilized in LSB? See prev

lilypond-book is not flavor independent

Please, replace the first line in lilypond-book: #!/usr/bin/python by #!/usr/bin/env python in order to run in all today's unix systems, including Mac OS X. Using this shebang is a great way to portability. Cheers, Claudia ___ bug-lilypond mail