Re: LilyDev - some questions

[Carl Sorensen]

On 5/9/18, 12:08 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Federico Bruni" 
 wrote:
Don't you have a date configuration in the system settings?
I'll have a look and see if I can improve this. The thing is that these 
new LilyDev machines (compared to the old ones) come ready to be used, 
without the hassle of a step-by-step installation (which on the other 
hand would allow to configure the system as you like). It's a trade off.

Federico,

I really appreciate your work on maintaining and improving LilyDev.  It's SOOO 
much better to have LilyDev than to have to create my own installation from 
genric distro iso's.  You've really cut down the work required for me to get a 
usable development environment on my MacBook pro.

That being said, I don't find the latest versions of LilyDev to be an nice as 
previous versions.  I don't like the pre-configured setup.  I didn't want my 
user name to be dev.

I went back to LilyDev 4 and just installed updated Ghostscript and the URW 
fonts.  I'm happier that way.

I can't speak for others, but for me, I want LilyDev to solve all of the 
problems of which Unix distro I should use and which packages I should have 
installed.  But I want to do my own setup customization for users, time-zone, 
language, etc.

Also, it's a challenge to me that we keep moving Unix distros (Ubuntu, Debian, 
Fedora).  I've been really happy with Debian.  I'd like to avoid changing away 
from it if at all possible.

 Thanks,

Carl


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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> What about setting up GUB (with LilyPond) on
>> https://hydra.nixos.org/?  Other GNU projects like Emacs are also
>> hosted there for daily builds, so it should be easy to get lilypond
>> registered there...
>>
>>   https://nixos.org/hydra/
> 
> Are you going to do it?

Basically, I'm interested.  It's time for me to learn how to set up a
CI system.  However, I have zero experience with GUB since I always
compile directly from the git repository for my GNU/Linux box...

Alas, I can't make any promises when I will find time for such a job.
As you know, May and June are the busiest months for lecturers in a
university...

> Like with any project driven by volunteers, LilyPond does not really
> suffer from a shortage of suggestions about what somebody else
> should really be doing.

Hold your horses!  Hydra has not been suggested yet as a CI system for
LilyPond, so this is a *new* suggestion, and I dared to mention just
for the sake of mentioning.  As an alternative, gitlab's CI support
can be used (after setting up a lilypond mirror).


Werner

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

Re: LilyDev - some questions

[James]

Hello


On 09/05/18 07:05, Federico Bruni wrote:

Hi Peter

I'll reply quickly now, but I'll come back in the next days as soon as 
I have some time to do some testing.


Il giorno sab 5 mag 2018 alle 22:24, Peter Teeson 
<"peter.teeson"@icloud.com> ha scritto:



(3) I ran the Terminal and did ./setup.sh. It appears to have 
downloaded the needed got repo’s.
  Looking at that script it seems I do not need to exec 
lily-git.tcl? (actually lilypond-git I think)




I must say I've never used lily-git so I never took it into account 
when I created LilyDev images.

I must have a look at it.

Anyway, you can ignore lily-git and use regular git to start contributing.


Lily-git was for mortals like me to quickly create git-formatted patches 
without having to learn how to run git CLI commands. I still use it 
(because I am lazy) but it is basically a tcl wrapper for a bunch of git 
commands. For users who have never used git before it does make the 
ability to contribute patches much easier.


It also comes from a different repo.

lilypond-git (or $LILYPOND_GIT) is the generic term we use for wherever 
the repo is installed.


James

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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG  writes:

> What about setting up GUB (with LilyPond) on https://hydra.nixos.org/?
> Other GNU projects like Emacs are also hosted there for daily
> builds, so it should be easy to get lilypond registered there...
>
>   https://nixos.org/hydra/

Are you going to do it?

Like with any project driven by volunteers, LilyPond does not really
suffer from a shortage of suggestions about what somebody else should
really be doing.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Werner LEMBERG]

> On my GUB build machine (4 core hyperthreaded i7, 8 Gigs, SSD) an
> incremental build (i.e. with a stable version of GUB with the
> toolset all up to date) takes around one to one and a half hours.
> If GUB needs updating, it can, as you say, take over 6 hours even on
> that machine.  The upload is then a few Gigs and on my old broadband
> this took around 6 hours to upload.  My shiny VDSL connection does
> it in about 5 minutes.  So a complete GUB rebuild is feasible.
> However, I'm not sure that was what was requested.  A simple Linux
> binary in a specific location of Lilypond.org would be fairly
> straightforward - about 2 minutes for the build and very quick
> upload.

What about setting up GUB (with LilyPond) on https://hydra.nixos.org/?
Other GNU projects like Emacs are also hosted there for daily
builds, so it should be easy to get lilypond registered there...

  https://nixos.org/hydra/


Werner

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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Am 09.05.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Phil Holmes:

Question: How difficult/costly/... would it be to prepare a "daily
build from current master" for download?


Very.  We are talking about 6 hours of build time on a pretty solidly
powered 8-processor machine.  Actually, we _were_ talking about that
before adding the Catalan translation to the docs and further
complicating the Documentation build process in order to get more
compact PDFs.


On my GUB build machine (4 core hyperthreaded i7, 8 Gigs, SSD) an 
incremental build (i.e. with a stable version of GUB with the toolset 
all up to date) takes around one to one and a half hours. If GUB needs 
updating, it can, as you say, take over 6 hours even on that machine.  
The upload is then a few Gigs and on my old broadband this took around 
6 hours to upload. My shiny VDSL connection does it in about 5 
minutes.  So a complete GUB rebuild is feasible.  However, I'm not 
sure that was what was requested. A simple Linux binary in a specific 
location of Lilypond.org would be fairly straightforward - about 2 
minutes for the build and very quick upload.


I admit that I thought more of a binary package than of the full 
documentation (which I gather is very involved to build). A possible 
rationale might be that a power-user who wants to have access to the 
latest features is likely to get to know these features by watching the 
-user or -devel lists, issue trackers etc., so it's maybe not terribly 
important to have the very latest documentation. (But I know that this 
argument could be disputed, for instance regarding the Internals manual).


As for the choice of the platform: One could argue that, e.g., binaries 
for Windows etc. might be even more useful than Linux binaries (which 
are comparatively easy to compile for oneself).


So: What I thought of when I asked about the costs of a "daily build" 
would be something like: Binaries for as many platforms as possible, but 
without the documentation. If something like that would be reasonable at 
all.


Best
Lukas

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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Lukas-Fabian Moser" 

To: ; "lilypond-user" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Release schedule for 2.20




But an increasing number of questions asked in forums or on the lists can 
be answered by “compile current master or wait for 2.21.0”. And a huge 
number of answers requires at least 2.19.xx but people understandably don’t 
want to install an “unstable” version.


IIUC, the situation used to be: i) Rare-to-very-rare stable releases for 
"normal" users, ii) frequent instable releases for those who wanted to use 
the latest features. This seems to have changed due to the preparations 
for the next stable release in that the instable releases stopped 
appearing as well for the time being. Since at the same time, development 
of new features goes on, people who want the latest features now have to 
compile for themselves.


(I, for example, just recently switched to self-compiled Lilypond because 
of Malte's amazing work on the \haydnTurn which was prompted by my 
question. To my surprise, compiling turned out to be quite easy, but of 
course there /were /some slight dependency issues, /and /I'm running on 
Linux which simplifies matters.)


Question: How difficult/costly/... would it be to prepare a "daily build 
from current master" for download? While this certainly would be overkill 
during times when there's a new unstable release every few weeks or so, it 
would I think, by way of contrast, highlight the status of the unstable 
releases more clearly: "The stable releases are rock-solid; the unstable 
releases usually work flawlessly but are subject to change; the daily 
build is something for the reckless and impatient." (Whereas now, the 
latter is the way people tend to think about the /unstable /releases which 
underestimates their quality.)


Best
Lukas



Are you referring to just a single (say Ubuntu) version of Lilypond, or the 
complete set of binary installations as produced in the release when you say 
a "daily build from current master"?


--
Phil Holmes 



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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Kastrup" 

To: "Lukas-Fabian Moser" 
Cc: "lilypond-user" ; 
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Release schedule for 2.20



Lukas-Fabian Moser  writes:


(I, for example, just recently switched to self-compiled Lilypond
because of Malte's amazing work on the \haydnTurn which was prompted
by my question. To my surprise, compiling turned out to be quite easy,
but of course there /were /some slight dependency issues, /and /I'm
running on Linux which simplifies matters.)


"simplifies matters" -- not really.  It's the only possible way.  We do
all other versions via crosscompilation.


Question: How difficult/costly/... would it be to prepare a "daily
build from current master" for download?


Very.  We are talking about 6 hours of build time on a pretty solidly
powered 8-processor machine.  Actually, we _were_ talking about that
before adding the Catalan translation to the docs and further
complicating the Documentation build process in order to get more
compact PDFs.


On my GUB build machine (4 core hyperthreaded i7, 8 Gigs, SSD) an 
incremental build (i.e. with a stable version of GUB with the toolset all up 
to date) takes around one to one and a half hours.  If GUB needs updating, 
it can, as you say, take over 6 hours even on that machine.  The upload is 
then a few Gigs and on my old broadband this took around 6 hours to upload. 
My shiny VDSL connection does it in about 5 minutes.  So a complete GUB 
rebuild is feasible.  However, I'm not sure that was what was requested.  A 
simple Linux binary in a specific location of Lilypond.org would be fairly 
straightforward - about 2 minutes for the build and very quick upload.


--
Phil Holmes 



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

Re: beam.cc: avoid calculating an invalid reference (issue 343160043 by d...@gnu.org)

[dak]

Reviewers: mtasaka,

Message:
On 2018/05/09 15:07:04, mtasaka wrote:

I checked the patch and it looks good. Also I've confirmed that

applying this

patch actually prevents abort for reported rest-pitched-beam.ly and
as-the-deer.ly (as-the-deer.ly was on RedHat bugzilla).


Thanks, I'll take that as an LGTM then.

Description:
beam.cc: avoid calculating an invalid reference

In calc_beam_segments, an invalid reference to a neighboring segment
was calculated (and not used) at the extreme ends of the beam.  This
caused segfaults on Fedora.  Since the reference is used at most twice
anyway and in the same expression, it seems easier to just use the
expression directly (the invalid cases are then skipped due to
short-circuit evaluation).

Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/343160043/

Affected files (+3, -3 lines):
  M lily/beam.cc


Index: lily/beam.cc
diff --git a/lily/beam.cc b/lily/beam.cc
index  
dff62168af0f10a6c8d95dd4048cab42743b8dfa..9a9ea15df2f815c4cc3b8fbdd7ce99cc034e058e  
100644

--- a/lily/beam.cc
+++ b/lily/beam.cc
@@ -457,7 +457,6 @@ Beam::calc_beam_segments (SCM smob)
   Beam_stem_segment const  = segs[j];
   for (LEFT_and_RIGHT (event_dir))
 {
-  Beam_stem_segment const _seg = segs[j + event_dir];
   // TODO: make names clearer? --jneem
   // on_line_bound: whether the current segment is on the  
boundary of the WHOLE beam
   // on_beam_bound: whether the current segment is on the  
boundary of just that part

@@ -471,9 +470,10 @@ Beam::calc_beam_segments (SCM smob)
  : seg.stem_index_ + 1 < stems.size ();

   bool event = on_beam_bound
-   || abs (seg.rank_ - neighbor_seg.rank_) > 1
+   || abs (seg.rank_ - segs[j + event_dir].rank_)  

1

|| (abs (vertical_count) >= seg.max_connect_
-   || abs (vertical_count) >=  
neighbor_seg.max_connect_);

+   || abs (vertical_count)
+>= segs[j + event_dir].max_connect_);

   if (!event)
 // Then this edge of the current segment is irrelevant  
because it will




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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[David Kastrup]

Lukas-Fabian Moser  writes:

> (I, for example, just recently switched to self-compiled Lilypond
> because of Malte's amazing work on the \haydnTurn which was prompted
> by my question. To my surprise, compiling turned out to be quite easy,
> but of course there /were /some slight dependency issues, /and /I'm
> running on Linux which simplifies matters.)

"simplifies matters" -- not really.  It's the only possible way.  We do
all other versions via crosscompilation.

> Question: How difficult/costly/... would it be to prepare a "daily
> build from current master" for download?

Very.  We are talking about 6 hours of build time on a pretty solidly
powered 8-processor machine.  Actually, we _were_ talking about that
before adding the Catalan translation to the docs and further
complicating the Documentation build process in order to get more
compact PDFs.

> While this certainly would be overkill during times when there's a new
> unstable release every few weeks or so, it would I think, by way of
> contrast, highlight the status of the unstable releases more clearly:
> "The stable releases are rock-solid; the unstable releases usually
> work flawlessly but are subject to change; the daily build is
> something for the reckless and impatient." (Whereas now, the latter is
> the way people tend to think about the /unstable /releases which
> underestimates their quality.)

There will be another prerelease coming up soonish as there were again a
few (just not all) critical fixes.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

beam.cc: avoid calculating an invalid reference (issue 343160043 by d...@gnu.org)

[mamoru . tasaka]

I checked the patch and it looks good. Also I've confirmed that applying
this patch actually prevents abort for reported rest-pitched-beam.ly and
as-the-deer.ly (as-the-deer.ly was on RedHat bugzilla).

https://codereview.appspot.com/343160043/

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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

But an increasing number of questions asked in forums or on the lists 
can be answered by “compile current master or wait for 2.21.0”. And a 
huge number of answers requires at least 2.19.xx but people 
understandably don’t want to install an “unstable” version.


IIUC, the situation used to be: i) Rare-to-very-rare stable releases for 
"normal" users, ii) frequent instable releases for those who wanted to 
use the latest features. This seems to have changed due to the 
preparations for the next stable release in that the instable releases 
stopped appearing as well for the time being. Since at the same time, 
development of new features goes on, people who want the latest features 
now have to compile for themselves.


(I, for example, just recently switched to self-compiled Lilypond 
because of Malte's amazing work on the \haydnTurn which was prompted by 
my question. To my surprise, compiling turned out to be quite easy, but 
of course there /were /some slight dependency issues, /and /I'm running 
on Linux which simplifies matters.)


Question: How difficult/costly/... would it be to prepare a "daily build 
from current master" for download? While this certainly would be 
overkill during times when there's a new unstable release every few 
weeks or so, it would I think, by way of contrast, highlight the status 
of the unstable releases more clearly: "The stable releases are 
rock-solid; the unstable releases usually work flawlessly but are 
subject to change; the daily build is something for the reckless and 
impatient." (Whereas now, the latter is the way people tend to think 
about the /unstable /releases which underestimates their quality.)


Best
Lukas
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[David Kastrup]

Malte Meyn  writes:

> Am 09.05.2018 um 11:49 schrieb Malte Meyn:
>> Don’t get me wrong: We can be very happy to have such a committed
>> project leader. But maybe also the other developers should join
>> forces to
>>
>> 1. find out what blocks the release of 2.20.0
>> 2. concentrate on that instead of new features.
>>
>> Personally, I don’t know about 1. That’s why I added new features
>> instead. At the moment I don’t have the time to that too but I would
>> be happy if I could help to bring 2.20.0 out.
>
> Hm … Is it the eight issues from the “Open (Critical)” category
> (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/search/?q=%28_type%3ACritical+OR+labels%3ARegression%29+AND+%28status%3ANew+OR+status%3AAccepted+OR+status%3AStarted%29)
> that block 2.20.0? So do we need fixes for all eight of them before
> anything can be released?

They are the main culprits, with 5315 being my personal nemesis.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Urs Liska]

Am 9. Mai 2018 12:18:37 MESZ schrieb Aaron Hill :
>On 2018-05-09 02:49, Malte Meyn wrote:
>> But an increasing number of questions asked in forums or on the lists
>> can be answered by “compile current master or wait for 2.21.0”. And a
>> huge number of answers requires at least 2.19.xx but people
>> understandably don’t want to install an “unstable” version.
>> 
>> Since the first prerelease seven months have passed, people wonder
>> whether 2.20.0 will happen in a few weeks, a few months or even
>longer
>> in the future.
>
>I should have stated originally that I am not trying to force anything 
>here.  I totally understand that the developers on this project may be 
>most comfortable with the approach of "we'll release it when it's
>ready, 
>not a moment before".  Rather, I was curious if the team had a planned 
>roadmap they were currently targeting, and where one could easily track
>
>that information.  It sounds like nothing of that sort really exists.  
>This is not ideal but hardly something to stress about.
>
>What does have impact for me is whether the next release is still many 
>months out or longer.  Knowing a little bit about the schedule, I can 
>more easily justify the time expense of getting a build environment set
>
>up to be able to run from master or some other staging branch.  I have 
>no qualms of running "bleeding-edge" bits.  That said, it is always
>more 
>convenient to be able to work from pre-built binaries, although those 
>understandably take time to create and publish.
>

This very much looks to me that your best bet is to install the latest release 
from the 2.19 series.
The only reason to compile yourself would be to incorporate custom patches.

Urs

>So, I apologize if I have ruffled any feathers here.
>
>-- Aaron Hill
>
>___
>lilypond-devel mailing list
>lilypond-devel@gnu.org
>https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Malte Meyn]

Am 09.05.2018 um 11:49 schrieb Malte Meyn:
Don’t get me wrong: We can be very happy to have such a committed 
project leader. But maybe also the other developers should join forces to


1. find out what blocks the release of 2.20.0
2. concentrate on that instead of new features.

Personally, I don’t know about 1. That’s why I added new features 
instead. At the moment I don’t have the time to that too but I would be 
happy if I could help to bring 2.20.0 out.


Hm … Is it the eight issues from the “Open (Critical)” category 
(https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/search/?q=%28_type%3ACritical+OR+labels%3ARegression%29+AND+%28status%3ANew+OR+status%3AAccepted+OR+status%3AStarted%29) 
that block 2.20.0? So do we need fixes for all eight of them before 
anything can be released?


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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Aaron Hill]

On 2018-05-09 02:49, Malte Meyn wrote:

But an increasing number of questions asked in forums or on the lists
can be answered by “compile current master or wait for 2.21.0”. And a
huge number of answers requires at least 2.19.xx but people
understandably don’t want to install an “unstable” version.

Since the first prerelease seven months have passed, people wonder
whether 2.20.0 will happen in a few weeks, a few months or even longer
in the future.


I should have stated originally that I am not trying to force anything 
here.  I totally understand that the developers on this project may be 
most comfortable with the approach of "we'll release it when it's ready, 
not a moment before".  Rather, I was curious if the team had a planned 
roadmap they were currently targeting, and where one could easily track 
that information.  It sounds like nothing of that sort really exists.  
This is not ideal but hardly something to stress about.


What does have impact for me is whether the next release is still many 
months out or longer.  Knowing a little bit about the schedule, I can 
more easily justify the time expense of getting a build environment set 
up to be able to run from master or some other staging branch.  I have 
no qualms of running "bleeding-edge" bits.  That said, it is always more 
convenient to be able to work from pre-built binaries, although those 
understandably take time to create and publish.


So, I apologize if I have ruffled any feathers here.

-- Aaron Hill

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

Re: Release schedule for 2.20

[Malte Meyn]

Am 09.05.2018 um 11:16 schrieb David Kastrup:

Aaron Hill  writes:


Hi folks,

It would seem the release of version 2.20 must be nearing, but I have
not found anything published about the release schedule for the
project.


There isn't one.


[CC-ing to lilypond-devel]

I know that you don’t like that sort of questions because “Das Gras 
wächst nicht schneller, wenn man daran zieht.”*


But an increasing number of questions asked in forums or on the lists 
can be answered by “compile current master or wait for 2.21.0”. And a 
huge number of answers requires at least 2.19.xx but people 
understandably don’t want to install an “unstable” version.


Since the first prerelease seven months have passed, people wonder 
whether 2.20.0 will happen in a few weeks, a few months or even longer 
in the future.


Don’t get me wrong: We can be very happy to have such a committed 
project leader. But maybe also the other developers should join forces to


1. find out what blocks the release of 2.20.0
2. concentrate on that instead of new features.

Personally, I don’t know about 1. That’s why I added new features 
instead. At the moment I don’t have the time to that too but I would be 
happy if I could help to bring 2.20.0 out.


* “Grass doesn’t grow faster when you pull it.”

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

Re: LilyDev - some questions

[Federico Bruni]

Hi Peter

I'll reply quickly now, but I'll come back in the next days as soon as 
I have some time to do some testing.


Il giorno sab 5 mag 2018 alle 22:24, Peter Teeson 
<"peter.teeson"@icloud.com> ha scritto:
My gear: Mac Pro Desktop, Yosemite 10.10.5, VBox 5.2.10 + Guest 
Additions and LilyDev VM setup and runnable.


I’m familiar with VBox and VM’s. Also marginally familiar with 
Linux (Debian via Raspbian ->Raspberry Pi 2B)

I am working with the Contributor’s Guide for LilyPond 2.19.81

My questions:
(1) The LilyDev vdi is on a partition on one of my HD’s. The HD has 
EFI.
  The LilyDev.box  is in my ~/VirtualBox VMs/LilyDev folder on 
the MacOS boot drive which has EFI

  EFI is enabled in the VM

  When booting the VM console shows a message saying boot failed 
EFI DVD/CDROM.
  Plus a bunch of other console messages which fly by too fast 
for me to capture.

 ( I don’t know where to look for the console log file)

  But booting continues OK to the point of being able to login 
dev.


  Should I care about the console messages?



Probably you can just ignore them.
See if this article can help you to locate the log file:
https://blogs.oracle.com/scoter/virtualbox-log-files-v2

I usually test these images on libvirt/GNOME Boxes. I think I got some 
messages on boot but never cared to investigate...



(2) Hardware Clock in UTC time is checked in VM System Settings (as 
is EFI)
 On my host machine I use a 24 hour clock display. My local time 
is UTC – 4 (DST).

 So for example Toronto time is presently 16:07 and UTC is 20:07.
 But LilyDev shows 22:07 on the login screen.

Sorry but I do not how to correct this. Should I care?



Don't you have a date configuration in the system settings?
I'll have a look and see if I can improve this. The thing is that these 
new LilyDev machines (compared to the old ones) come ready to be used, 
without the hassle of a step-by-step installation (which on the other 
hand would allow to configure the system as you like). It's a trade off.



(3) I ran the Terminal and did ./setup.sh. It appears to have 
downloaded the needed got repo’s.
  Looking at that script it seems I do not need to exec 
lily-git.tcl? (actually lilypond-git I think)




I must say I've never used lily-git so I never took it into account 
when I created LilyDev images.

I must have a look at it.

Anyway, you can ignore lily-git and use regular git to start 
contributing.



(4) The main desktop screen shows a popup about 770 updates for 
dnfdragora-update.


  What does this mean and what am I rto doubt it?



Wow, it's a lot! Fedora gets frequent updates even for current 
releases... which make me think I should rather use Debian stable for 
the virtual machine. There are pro and con in using either Debian or 
Fedora at the moment.


You can upgrade or ignore it. It's up to you.
In general upgrading is recommended.

Thanks for your feedback
Federico


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