Re: ready for 2.21.80?
Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 17:55 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: > Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 16:43 + schrieb Phil Holmes: > > GUB now almost completes, but fails making one of the German docs. It > > looks like this is the error: > > > > Forking into jobs: (10998 10997 10996 10995 10994 10993 10992 10991) > > logfile lilypond-multi-run-5.log (exit 1): > > ne breaks... > > Drawing systems... > > Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.signature > > Layout output to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19.eps'... > > Converting to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19.pdf'... > > Converting to PNG... > > Layout output to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.eps'... > > Converting to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.pdf'... > > Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.texi... > > Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.tex... > > Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.count... > > Processing `./0d/lily-03b52edc.ly' > > Parsing... > > Interpreting music... > > Preprocessing graphical objects... > > Calculating line breaks... > > Drawing systems... > > Writing ./0d/lily-03b52edc-1.signature > > Layout output to `./0d/lily-03b52edc.eps'... > > Converting to `./0d/lily-03b52edc.pdf'... > > /home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-x86/root/usr/share/lilypond/current/scm/backend-library.scm:282:15: > > In procedure make-tmpfile in expression (make-tmpfile basename (1- tries)): > > /home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-x86/root/usr/share/lilypond/current/scm/backend-library.scm:282:15: > > Wrong number of arguments to # > > This points to the code path that is executed in case of a race where a > temporary file is created by two processes. And the error message is > absolutely right, that code could have never worked because it must > call `inner` instead of `make-tmpfile` recursively. > That should be easy to fix and while another execution of GUB might > succeed (mine worked yesterday) I'd prefer to fix this problem for good > in master and then backport immediately. Hopefully I can do that later > this evening. Fixed by https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/490 and cherry-picked in https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/commit/b0dbcf35d9cba1b36c1e0210a207b5c9e226d669 Could you try again? Thanks, Jonas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 16:43 + schrieb Phil Holmes: > GUB now almost completes, but fails making one of the German docs. It looks > like this is the error: > > Forking into jobs: (10998 10997 10996 10995 10994 10993 10992 10991) > logfile lilypond-multi-run-5.log (exit 1): > ne breaks... > Drawing systems... > Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.signature > Layout output to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19.eps'... > Converting to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19.pdf'... > Converting to PNG... > Layout output to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.eps'... > Converting to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.pdf'... > Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.texi... > Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.tex... > Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.count... > Processing `./0d/lily-03b52edc.ly' > Parsing... > Interpreting music... > Preprocessing graphical objects... > Calculating line breaks... > Drawing systems... > Writing ./0d/lily-03b52edc-1.signature > Layout output to `./0d/lily-03b52edc.eps'... > Converting to `./0d/lily-03b52edc.pdf'... > /home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-x86/root/usr/share/lilypond/current/scm/backend-library.scm:282:15: > In procedure make-tmpfile in expression (make-tmpfile basename (1- tries)): > /home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-x86/root/usr/share/lilypond/current/scm/backend-library.scm:282:15: > Wrong number of arguments to # This points to the code path that is executed in case of a race where a temporary file is created by two processes. And the error message is absolutely right, that code could have never worked because it must call `inner` instead of `make-tmpfile` recursively. That should be easy to fix and while another execution of GUB might succeed (mine worked yesterday) I'd prefer to fix this problem for good in master and then backport immediately. Hopefully I can do that later this evening. Jonas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
GUB now almost completes, but fails making one of the German docs. It looks
like this is the error:
Forking into jobs: (10998 10997 10996 10995 10994 10993 10992 10991)
logfile lilypond-multi-run-5.log (exit 1):
ne breaks...
Drawing systems...
Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.signature
Layout output to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19.eps'...
Converting to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19.pdf'...
Converting to PNG...
Layout output to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.eps'...
Converting to `./16/lily-ec7f1c19-1.pdf'...
Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.texi...
Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.tex...
Writing ./16/lily-ec7f1c19-systems.count...
Processing `./0d/lily-03b52edc.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Calculating line breaks...
Drawing systems...
Writing ./0d/lily-03b52edc-1.signature
Layout output to `./0d/lily-03b52edc.eps'...
Converting to `./0d/lily-03b52edc.pdf'...
/home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-x86/root/usr/share/lilypond/current/scm/backend-library.scm:282:15:
In procedure make-tmpfile in expression (make-tmpfile basename (1- tries)):
/home/gub/NewGub/gub/target/linux-x86/root/usr/share/lilypond/current/scm/backend-library.scm:282:15:
Wrong number of arguments to #
fatal error: Children (5) exited with errors.
The lilypond source file is just:
%% Generated by lilypond-book
%% Options:
[exampleindent=10.16\mm,fragment,indent=0\mm,line-width=160\mm,quote,ragged-right]
\include "lilypond-book-preamble.ly"
%
% Start cut-&-pastable-section
%
\paper {
indent = 0\mm
line-width = 160\mm
% offset the left padding, also add 1mm as lilypond creates cropped
% images with a little space on the right
line-width = #(- line-width (* mm 3.00) (* mm 1))
line-width = 160\mm - 2.0 * 10.16\mm
% offset the left padding, also add 1mm as lilypond creates cropped
% images with a little space on the right
line-width = #(- line-width (* mm 3.00) (* mm 1))
ragged-right = ##t
}
\layout {
}
{
%
% ly snippet contents follows:
%
\sourcefileline 3550
\once \override PhrasingSlur.positions = #'(2.5 . 4.5)
a'8 \( ( a''16 ) a'' \)
%
% end ly snippet
%
}
On 31/10/2020 15:16, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 15:08 + schrieb Phil Holmes:
Fails trying to do the PO make:
phil@ubuntu12:~/lilypond-git$ make -C $LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR po-replace
make: Entering directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build'
/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:116:
/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-vars.make: No such
file or directory
/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:123:
/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-rules.make: No such
file or directory
/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:125:
/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make: No
such file or directory
make: *** No rule to make target
'/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make'.
Stop.
make: Leaving directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build'
Hm, these files are gone since August. Is that a fresh build directory,
with the source a checkout of stable/2.22? What puzzles me is that it
(apparently) worked for 2.21.7 and there has been no change to the PO
infrastructure since then (only before).
On 29/10/2020 15:52, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld:
As the title says. We still need to merge the PO translations (see
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/476 ) and pick
them to stable/2.22. If you speak one of the concerned languages that
I've been hijacking the translation for (ca, eo, es, it, nl, sv),
please consider giving it a short look. I'll also merge the translation
branch to stable/2.22 before asking Phil for a release.
All items from my list are done (above + fixing the translated snippets
when building in-tree) and stable/2.22 looks good from what I can tell.
So, I think we're ready for a first release candidate.
Phil, if you have time, could you run a build on stable/2.22? I will
stop picking fixes into the branch to avoid any interference (commits
to translation can of course continue).
Regards
Jonas
--
Phil Holmes
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
Nuked the build directory and redid configur, etc., and all now looks good, thanks. On 31/10/2020 15:16, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 15:08 + schrieb Phil Holmes: Fails trying to do the PO make: phil@ubuntu12:~/lilypond-git$ make -C $LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR po-replace make: Entering directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build' /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:116: /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-vars.make: No such file or directory /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:123: /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-rules.make: No such file or directory /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:125: /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make: No such file or directory make: *** No rule to make target '/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make'. Stop. make: Leaving directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build' Hm, these files are gone since August. Is that a fresh build directory, with the source a checkout of stable/2.22? What puzzles me is that it (apparently) worked for 2.21.7 and there has been no change to the PO infrastructure since then (only before). On 29/10/2020 15:52, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: As the title says. We still need to merge the PO translations (see https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/476 ) and pick them to stable/2.22. If you speak one of the concerned languages that I've been hijacking the translation for (ca, eo, es, it, nl, sv), please consider giving it a short look. I'll also merge the translation branch to stable/2.22 before asking Phil for a release. All items from my list are done (above + fixing the translated snippets when building in-tree) and stable/2.22 looks good from what I can tell. So, I think we're ready for a first release candidate. Phil, if you have time, could you run a build on stable/2.22? I will stop picking fixes into the branch to avoid any interference (commits to translation can of course continue). Regards Jonas -- Phil Holmes
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 15:08 + schrieb Phil Holmes: > Fails trying to do the PO make: > > phil@ubuntu12:~/lilypond-git$ make -C $LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR po-replace > make: Entering directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build' > /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:116: > /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-vars.make: No > such file or directory > /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:123: > /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-rules.make: No > such file or directory > /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:125: > /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make: No > such file or directory > make: *** No rule to make target > '/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make'. > Stop. > make: Leaving directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build' Hm, these files are gone since August. Is that a fresh build directory, with the source a checkout of stable/2.22? What puzzles me is that it (apparently) worked for 2.21.7 and there has been no change to the PO infrastructure since then (only before). > > On 29/10/2020 15:52, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: > > > As the title says. We still need to merge the PO translations (see > > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/476 ) and pick > > > them to stable/2.22. If you speak one of the concerned languages that > > > I've been hijacking the translation for (ca, eo, es, it, nl, sv), > > > please consider giving it a short look. I'll also merge the translation > > > branch to stable/2.22 before asking Phil for a release. > > All items from my list are done (above + fixing the translated snippets > > when building in-tree) and stable/2.22 looks good from what I can tell. > > So, I think we're ready for a first release candidate. > > Phil, if you have time, could you run a build on stable/2.22? I will > > stop picking fixes into the branch to avoid any interference (commits > > to translation can of course continue). > > > > Regards > > Jonas > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
Fails trying to do the PO make: phil@ubuntu12:~/lilypond-git$ make -C $LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR po-replace make: Entering directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build' /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:116: /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-vars.make: No such file or directory /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:123: /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-rules.make: No such file or directory /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:125: /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make: No such file or directory make: *** No rule to make target '/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make'. Stop. make: Leaving directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build' On 29/10/2020 15:52, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: As the title says. We still need to merge the PO translations (see https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/476 ) and pick them to stable/2.22. If you speak one of the concerned languages that I've been hijacking the translation for (ca, eo, es, it, nl, sv), please consider giving it a short look. I'll also merge the translation branch to stable/2.22 before asking Phil for a release. All items from my list are done (above + fixing the translated snippets when building in-tree) and stable/2.22 looks good from what I can tell. So, I think we're ready for a first release candidate. Phil, if you have time, could you run a build on stable/2.22? I will stop picking fixes into the branch to avoid any interference (commits to translation can of course continue). Regards Jonas -- Phil Holmes
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
I see your confusion. My eyes obviously need testing :-( On 31/10/2020 13:31, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 13:23 + schrieb Phil Holmes: Looking at this now. I see that in the 2.22 branch VERSION numbers are stable 2.22.0 and devel will be 2.21.80. I've never really worked out how GUB decides to create a new stable version or a development version, but it's conceivable that it creates the highest numerical version. I'm wondering whether it would be good to have the stable version number fixed at 2.20.0 until we're ready to release 2.22.0? Not sure I can follow here, the current VERSION content is: MAJOR_VERSION=2 MINOR_VERSION=21 PATCH_LEVEL=80 MY_PATCH_LEVEL= VERSION_STABLE=2.20.0 VERSION_DEVEL=2.21.7 I think the normal release procedure should do here, ie bump VERSION_DEVEL to 2.21.80. After the release, PATCH_LEVEL in stable/2.22 should be 81 and the bump of VERSION_DEVEL needs to be applied to master. I agree that the stable version number should remain at 2.20.0 for the time being, in both stable/2.22 and master. On 29/10/2020 15:52, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: As the title says. We still need to merge the PO translations (see https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/476 ) and pick them to stable/2.22. If you speak one of the concerned languages that I've been hijacking the translation for (ca, eo, es, it, nl, sv), please consider giving it a short look. I'll also merge the translation branch to stable/2.22 before asking Phil for a release. All items from my list are done (above + fixing the translated snippets when building in-tree) and stable/2.22 looks good from what I can tell. So, I think we're ready for a first release candidate. Phil, if you have time, could you run a build on stable/2.22? I will stop picking fixes into the branch to avoid any interference (commits to translation can of course continue). Regards Jonas -- Phil Holmes
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 13:23 + schrieb Phil Holmes: > Looking at this now. I see that in the 2.22 branch VERSION numbers are > stable 2.22.0 and devel will be 2.21.80. I've never really worked out how > GUB decides to create a new stable version or a development version, but it's > conceivable that it creates the highest numerical version. I'm wondering > whether it would be good to have the stable version number fixed at 2.20.0 > until we're ready to release 2.22.0? Not sure I can follow here, the current VERSION content is: MAJOR_VERSION=2 MINOR_VERSION=21 PATCH_LEVEL=80 MY_PATCH_LEVEL= VERSION_STABLE=2.20.0 VERSION_DEVEL=2.21.7 I think the normal release procedure should do here, ie bump VERSION_DEVEL to 2.21.80. After the release, PATCH_LEVEL in stable/2.22 should be 81 and the bump of VERSION_DEVEL needs to be applied to master. I agree that the stable version number should remain at 2.20.0 for the time being, in both stable/2.22 and master. > > On 29/10/2020 15:52, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > > Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: > > > As the title says. We still need to merge the PO translations (see > > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/476 ) and pick > > > them to stable/2.22. If you speak one of the concerned languages that > > > I've been hijacking the translation for (ca, eo, es, it, nl, sv), > > > please consider giving it a short look. I'll also merge the translation > > > branch to stable/2.22 before asking Phil for a release. > > All items from my list are done (above + fixing the translated snippets > > when building in-tree) and stable/2.22 looks good from what I can tell. > > So, I think we're ready for a first release candidate. > > Phil, if you have time, could you run a build on stable/2.22? I will > > stop picking fixes into the branch to avoid any interference (commits > > to translation can of course continue). > > > > Regards > > Jonas > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
Looking at this now. I see that in the 2.22 branch VERSION numbers are stable 2.22.0 and devel will be 2.21.80. I've never really worked out how GUB decides to create a new stable version or a development version, but it's conceivable that it creates the highest numerical version. I'm wondering whether it would be good to have the stable version number fixed at 2.20.0 until we're ready to release 2.22.0? On 29/10/2020 15:52, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld: As the title says. We still need to merge the PO translations (see https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/476 ) and pick them to stable/2.22. If you speak one of the concerned languages that I've been hijacking the translation for (ca, eo, es, it, nl, sv), please consider giving it a short look. I'll also merge the translation branch to stable/2.22 before asking Phil for a release. All items from my list are done (above + fixing the translated snippets when building in-tree) and stable/2.22 looks good from what I can tell. So, I think we're ready for a first release candidate. Phil, if you have time, could you run a build on stable/2.22? I will stop picking fixes into the branch to avoid any interference (commits to translation can of course continue). Regards Jonas -- Phil Holmes
PATCHES - Countdown for October 31st
Hello, Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on November 2nd. A list of all merge requests can be found here: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests?sort=label_priority Push: !486 Formalize indefinite-length music - Dan Eble https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/486 !483 Fix ly:bar-line::calc-anchor - Thomas Morley https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/483 !477 Resolve more warnings from Clang - Jonas Hahnfeld https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/477 !473 Implement BendSpanner-grob - Thomas Morley https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/473 Countdown: !449 Stepmake / po-targets: Various cleanups - Michael Käppler https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/449 Review: No patches in Review at this time. New: !488 Doc-fr: fine tuning some texidocs - Jean-Charles Malahieude https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/488 Waiting: !451 Define notehead attachment points separately - Owen Lamb https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/451 !344 doc: fully qualify doc includes. - Han-Wen Nienhuys https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/344 !204 Move parallel processing to lilypond-book - Han-Wen Nienhuys https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/204 Review: No patches in Review at this time. New: No patches in New at this time. Waiting: !451 Define notehead attachment points separately - Owen Lamb https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/451 !344 doc: fully qualify doc includes. - Han-Wen Nienhuys https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/344 !204 Move parallel processing to lilypond-book - Han-Wen Nienhuys https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/204 *** Regards, James
