I getting used to the BeagleBone Black, so I though I'd try compiling
Lilypond. It runs Debian, but on an ARM. LilyPond hasn't provided a
precompiled binary for ARM for a decade.
Similar to what Trevor found,
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2014-02/msg00212.html
setting up on
Two snippets used a function make-simple-closure.
No-one understands the purpose of that function anymore, so we stopped
recommending it in the docs with issue 3993.
I re-entered these two snippets in form that avoids make-simple closure
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=948
There have been a couple bug-reports (3669 3677) coming from users wanting to
access LilyPond's layout decisions, in order to adjust those decisions. The
surprises come from LilyPond being at an intermediate stage in the
decision-making process when the user function is activated.
Issue 3677
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:32:19 -0800, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Argh. How about this one (should likely apply using git am):
That clears the crash, resolves the problem with extra barlines,
and leaves no similar problems in my test case so far as I can see.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:48:47 -0800, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
So one suspicion would be that iter_ points to a non-operative
iterator. Maybe set it to zero in
Sequential_iterator::do_quit ()
That change, on master, did not clear the crash.
release/2.18 gives good output on
I was getting crashes while testing the page-layout changes on a big set of
files, which went away when I set just one input file. It will take a while
before I narrow it down to a small example.
I can reproduce by taking
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=1793
+ running
While testing the tempo-marks patch, I compiled an orchestral score using both
version 2.16 and current, which is probably close to what 2.18 will be.
http://k-ohara.oco.net/Lilypond/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:10:03 -0800, Graham Percival wrote:
les-nerides: this is definitely an improvement. I'm surprised to
see that the old version involved a collision between fingering
and a slur in different staves, though! (end of bar 2)
Could somebody look into whether this is a known
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:00:02 -0800, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Keith: ok, I'll produce a git patch for this, but could you try following
the instructions
here:http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/using-lily_002dgit
The instructions for using lily-git.tcl worked
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:00:02 -0800, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
What I don't really understand why the stretchability [...] in
staves/scores contexts seems to have a completely different unit than the
stretchability defined in the
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:14:11 -0800, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Similarly, I think the two 'staff-staff-spacing properties
would be intuitive and easy enough to keep separate,
mentally:
% space between consecutive staves in a system
\override VerticalAxisGroup
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 20:08:06 -0700, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Keith E OHara wrote:
I had imagined you would simultaneously change
staff-affinity (UP / DOWN / CENTER)
toreference-direction (UP / DOWN / CENTER)
so we can remember that this direction tells us which
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:58:58 -0700, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
wrote:
Keith E OHara wrote Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:19 AM
2a) Lyrics get less space in the new system, but all the
choral-music folk seem to want is a but a touch more padding from
Lyrics to any non-associated grobs
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 07:57:33 -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
Can we have one last vote among these
two choices?
1) within-group-staff-staff-spacing
2) withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
Keith: either
Both are usable.
We will use this in context that makes that first qualifier almost redundant :
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:24:33 -0700, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:47:01 -0700, Graham wrote:
This is directed at people saying I can't do anything to help...
I need a committing, not necessarily committed, partner to close this.
I attach a patch
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:20:08 -0700, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Renaming proposals, round 4:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME
-
next-staff staff-staff
default-next-staff default-staff-staff
inter-staffnonstaff-relatedstaff
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:04:06 -0700, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Friday, October 29, 2010 11:27 PM
I've thought about it, and I think I slightly favor the term
loose line over non-staff line
[...]
Also loose-staff-spacing sounds
too much like something that
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:17:00 -0700, Ian Hulin i...@hulin.org.uk wrote:
On 29/10/10 05:12, Keith wrote:
Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:1513: * Inter-system spacing
properties::
Within-system
You said: inter = between, intra = within [...]
or do you mean the original Inter-system
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:13:03 -0700, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
There is now a small set of over-rides is posted on -user, vertical spacing
only so far, hopefully to be tried out by others over the weekend :
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-10/msg00692.html
On
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:24:33 -0700, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 01:23:01PM -0700, Keith E OHara wrote:
However, I have no familiarity with how vocal music is supposed
to look, and I tend to avoid tweaks myself. Graham's request
seems quite easy
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:12:16 -0700, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:47:01 -0700, Graham wrote:
This is directed at people saying I can't do anything to help...
You sent this to -devel; did you intend -user ?
Basically, just try compiling your scores (and any
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:34:05 -0700, Trevor Daniels wrote:
If no one objects soon I shall push it.
James Lowe made comments that you might not have seen yet. I see where he is
coming from, but I hope my answer explained the purpose of the changes well
enough.
(For future reference, please
On mailing list lilypond-user, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Keith E OHara wrote Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:40 AM
I no longer see any reason to use instrumentCueName for the labels
that identify the instrument playing cue notes.
OK. I'll see what you suggest.
I suggest (diff attached
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:40:54 -0700, Keith E OHara wrote:
Corresponding suggestions for vocal.itely will follow shortly.
One thing worth discussing is that I use the verb to cue differently from the
original author.
I believe that to cue is to *give* a signal for someone else to begin
Dear documentation editors,
In the existing @knownissues for cadenzaOn, I suggest adding one sentence (in
context below) encouraging manual beams. Users might *think* autobeaming works
through cadenzas, and it does for a while, but it will not through longer
cadenzas.
There is a related
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:09:42 -0700, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk
wrote:
Although this would seem to be a valuable addition to the
Notation Reference, the policy is not to add bugs which are
in the bug tracker to @knownissues. [...] as they would need to be removed
as soon as they
Friends of LilyPond,
I am suggesting a new @knownissues for the Notation Reference 2.2.1. The
corresponding bug tracker issues are 1043, 439, and 36. If issue 1043 is
solved, the second paragraph of my suggestion will become obsolete.
I wrote the text below based on observed behavior of
Friends of LilyPond,
I am suggesting a new @knownissues for the Notation Reference 2.2.1. The
corresponding bug tracker issues are 1043, 439, and 36. If issue 1043 is
solved, the second paragraph of my suggestion would be come obsolete.
I wrote the text below based on observed behavior
28 matches
Mail list logo
