lilybuntu confusion

[Jonathan Kulp-2]

Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> We had a *bad* experience with Wubi; somebody lost his computer (I think it
> was the second Andrew, not Hawryluk.
>
> I think we should not recommend wubi.
>
> Carl
>
>
Ah. I vaguely recall this but I thought he only ended up with a
dual-boot machine when he thought it would be an app running
inside Windows--not the expected result but hardly a lost machine.
  That said, I withdraw my recommendation for Wubi. :)

Jon

--
Jonathan Kulp
http://www.jonathankulp.com


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Graham Percival-3]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:24:24AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote:
> > Well, I would recommend _at least_ 384MB, but running two OS'es
> > at the same time on a computer with 0.5G RAM can be hard.
>
> Actually, VirtualBox will not let me use less than 75% of my host
> RAM. So I can set it to 377 MB at the most. Should I quit now, or
> see if it can work?

If the virtual Linux has 128 megs of ram, then it should be able
to compile lilypond.  I used to do that, and our build system
hasn't changed that much since then.

> At the moment, I just want to compile the docs.

Not to discourage this whole endeavor, but this can be kind-of
done already -- you use the last binary rather than compiling
lilyond from source, but as long as there's no syntax updates, it
works just fine.  I've done this for years (yes, even during
GDP!), and Trevor still does this.

AU 1.2.4 Building the docs without compiling, I belive it is.

Cheers,
- Graham


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: lilybuntu confusion


> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:24:24AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
>> At the moment, I just want to compile the docs.
>
> Not to discourage this whole endeavor, but this can be kind-of
> done already -- you use the last binary rather than compiling
> lilyond from source, but as long as there's no syntax updates, it
> works just fine.  I've done this for years (yes, even during
> GDP!), and Trevor still does this.

Sort of.  I never actually compile the whole documentation.
All I need to do is to check that any edits I make are not
going to break compilation, so all I need is to pass
the single file I've just edited through lilypond-book,
run a simple script to check refs, and then run texi2html
so I can check the formatting and appearance in a browser.
I have a script to do this and it usually works fine.  It's
far quicker than building the whole set of documents -
typically 10-30 secs depending on the number of examples
and snippets to be compiled.

> AU 1.2.4 Building the docs without compiling, I belive it is.

I've never tried this, so I can't comment, but it looks
like it needs more than vanilla Windows plus a bash shell.

Trevor



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Graham Percival-3]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:

>
> Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: lilybuntu confusion
>
>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:24:24AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>>
>> Not to discourage this whole endeavor, but this can be kind-of
>> done already -- you use the last binary rather than compiling
>> lilyond from source, but as long as there's no syntax updates, it
>> works just fine.  I've done this for years (yes, even during
>> GDP!), and Trevor still does this.
>
> Sort of.  I never actually compile the whole documentation.

Ah, sorry.

> All I need to do is to check that any edits I make are not
> going to break compilation, so all I need is to pass
> the single file I've just edited through lilypond-book,
> run a simple script to check refs, and then run texi2html
> so I can check the formatting and appearance in a browser.
> I have a script to do this and it usually works fine.  It's
> far quicker than building the whole set of documents - typically 10-30
> secs depending on the number of examples and snippets to be compiled.

Does this still compile the lilypond examples?  That would take
take much longer than 10-30 seconds.  If there's a way to generate
the docs without compiling lilypond examples (i.e. just show the
verbatim code, without actually generating the images), that would
be awesome.  99% of doc updates don't need to be image-checked, so
that could save me/whoever a lot of time.  :)

Cheers,
- Graham


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Jonathan Kulp-2]

Graham Percival wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: lilybuntu confusion
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:24:24AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to discourage this whole endeavor, but this can be kind-of
>>> done already -- you use the last binary rather than compiling
>>> lilyond from source, but as long as there's no syntax updates, it
>>> works just fine.  I've done this for years (yes, even during
>>> GDP!), and Trevor still does this.
>> Sort of.  I never actually compile the whole documentation.
>
> Ah, sorry.
>
>> All I need to do is to check that any edits I make are not
>> going to break compilation, so all I need is to pass
>> the single file I've just edited through lilypond-book,
>> run a simple script to check refs, and then run texi2html
>> so I can check the formatting and appearance in a browser.
>> I have a script to do this and it usually works fine.  It's
>> far quicker than building the whole set of documents - typically 10-30
>> secs depending on the number of examples and snippets to be compiled.
>
> Does this still compile the lilypond examples?  That would take
> take much longer than 10-30 seconds.  If there's a way to generate
> the docs without compiling lilypond examples (i.e. just show the
> verbatim code, without actually generating the images), that would
> be awesome.  99% of doc updates don't need to be image-checked, so
> that could save me/whoever a lot of time.  :)
>

I'm able to copy to different location and compile certain files
by themselves as long as they don't require a bunch of @include
files.  They compile very quickly this way.  I wonder if it might
help to define some new Make targets.  For example "make
lilypond-learning.pdf" would only compile the LM, and I would
assume save quite a bit of time in compiling over "make doc".

Jon
--
Jonathan Kulp
http://www.jonathankulp.com


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Graham Percival-3]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 12:41:32PM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:

> Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> Does this still compile the lilypond examples?  That would take
>> take much longer than 10-30 seconds.
>
> I'm able to copy to different location and compile certain files by
> themselves as long as they don't require a bunch of @include files.  They
> compile very quickly this way.  I wonder if it might help to define some
> new Make targets.  For example "make lilypond-learning.pdf" would only
> compile the LM, and I would assume save quite a bit of time in compiling
> over "make doc".

I was already planning on splitting the docs into
Documentation/learning, Documentation/notation, etc., so that
would implicitly do this anyway.  :)

Cheers,
- Graham


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Carl Sorensen-3]

On 7/3/09 1:02 PM, "Graham Percival" <graham@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 12:41:32PM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
>> Graham Percival wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>> Does this still compile the lilypond examples?  That would take
>>> take much longer than 10-30 seconds.
>>
>> I'm able to copy to different location and compile certain files by
>> themselves as long as they don't require a bunch of @include files.  They
>> compile very quickly this way.  I wonder if it might help to define some
>> new Make targets.  For example "make lilypond-learning.pdf" would only
>> compile the LM, and I would assume save quite a bit of time in compiling
>> over "make doc".
>
> I was already planning on splitting the docs into
> Documentation/learning, Documentation/notation, etc., so that
> would implicitly do this anyway.  :)

I thought you were planning on making it

documentation/learning

(i.e, eliminating the D).

Carl



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Graham Percival-3]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:06:50PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:

>
>
>
> On 7/3/09 1:02 PM, "Graham Percival" <graham@...> wrote:
> > I was already planning on splitting the docs into
> > Documentation/learning, Documentation/notation, etc., so that
> > would implicitly do this anyway.  :)
>
> I thought you were planning on making it
>
> documentation/learning

actually, i was thinking docs/ to make the typing faster, although
i note that there's no other d*/ word in the repo.  but imo that
wasn't a relevant detail.

cheers,
- graham


_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Friday, July 03, 2009 3:18 AM

> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: lilybuntu confusion
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:24:24AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to discourage this whole endeavor, but this can be kind-of
>>> done already -- you use the last binary rather than compiling
>>> lilyond from source, but as long as there's no syntax updates,
>>> it
>>> works just fine.  I've done this for years (yes, even during
>>> GDP!), and Trevor still does this.
>>
>> Sort of.  I never actually compile the whole documentation.
>
> Ah, sorry.
>
>> All I need to do is to check that any edits I make are not
>> going to break compilation, so all I need is to pass
>> the single file I've just edited through lilypond-book,
>> run a simple script to check refs, and then run texi2html
>> so I can check the formatting and appearance in a browser.
>> I have a script to do this and it usually works fine.  It's
>> far quicker than building the whole set of documents - typically
>> 10-30
>> secs depending on the number of examples and snippets to be
>> compiled.
>
> Does this still compile the lilypond examples?  That would take
> take much longer than 10-30 seconds.  If there's a way to generate
> the docs without compiling lilypond examples (i.e. just show the
> verbatim code, without actually generating the images), that would
> be awesome.  99% of doc updates don't need to be image-checked, so
> that could save me/whoever a lot of time.  :)

Yes, it compiles all the examples and all the included snippets,
but it can take longer than I said.  To compile rhythms.itely,
which is one of the longest, takes 2 mins 20 sec from entering
the script to seeing the resultant html displayed in IE.  This
includes checking all the cross-references in all the docs for
validity, but that doesn't take more than 10 secs or so.

Doing the same for keyboards.itely takes 22 secs.

> Cheers,
> - Graham

Trevor



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

[Trevor Daniels]

Jonathan Kulp wrote Friday, July 03, 2009 6:41 PM

> Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>> Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: lilybuntu confusion
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:24:24AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not to discourage this whole endeavor, but this can be kind-of
>>>> done already -- you use the last binary rather than compiling
>>>> lilyond from source, but as long as there's no syntax updates,
>>>> it
>>>> works just fine.  I've done this for years (yes, even during
>>>> GDP!), and Trevor still does this.
>>> Sort of.  I never actually compile the whole documentation.
>>
>> Ah, sorry.
>>
>>> All I need to do is to check that any edits I make are not
>>> going to break compilation, so all I need is to pass
>>> the single file I've just edited through lilypond-book,
>>> run a simple script to check refs, and then run texi2html
>>> so I can check the formatting and appearance in a browser.
>>> I have a script to do this and it usually works fine.  It's
>>> far quicker than building the whole set of documents - typically
>>> 10-30 secs depending on the number of examples and snippets to
>>> be compiled.
>>
>> Does this still compile the lilypond examples?  That would take
>> take much longer than 10-30 seconds.  If there's a way to
>> generate
>> the docs without compiling lilypond examples (i.e. just show the
>> verbatim code, without actually generating the images), that
>> would
>> be awesome.  99% of doc updates don't need to be image-checked,
>> so
>> that could save me/whoever a lot of time.  :)
>>
>
> I'm able to copy to different location and compile certain files
> by themselves as long as they don't require a bunch of @include
> files.  They compile very quickly this way.  I wonder if it might
> help to define some new Make targets.  For example "make
> lilypond-learning.pdf" would only compile the LM, and I would
> assume save quite a bit of time in compiling over "make doc".

Here's the script I use.  It's a bit of a hack,
especially getting the macros right, but it works
well for me.  I never did get around to tidying it
up :(

Trevor

#!/bin/sh

NAME="rhythms"
FROMDIR="C:/Users/Trevor/LilyPond-git"
DOCDIR="C:/Users/Trevor/LilyPond-docs"
TODIR=$DOCDIR/$NAME

if test ! -d $TODIR; then
  mkdir $TODIR
fi
if test ! -d $TODIR/out; then
  mkdir $TODIR/out
fi

cp $FROMDIR/Documentation/user/macros.itexi $TODIR/out/macros.itexi

cp $FROMDIR/input/manual/$NAME-headword.ly $TODIR/$NAME-headword.ly

echo Running lilypond-book
cd $TODIR
python "c:/program files/lilypond/usr/bin/lilypond-book.py" -f
texi-html -I $FROMDIR/input/lsr -o out
$FROMDIR/Documentation/user/$NAME.itely

echo Running RefCheck
cd d:/users/trevor/leisure/computing/python/refcheck
python refcheck.py
cd $DOCDIR

echo Running texi2html
cat $DOCDIR/macros.texi $TODIR/out/$NAME.texi > $TODIR/$NAME.texi
c:/programs/texi2html/texi2html --no-validate --output=$TODIR/out/$NAME.html
$TODIR/$NAME.texi

echo Running IE
"C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe"
$TODIR/out/$NAME.html



_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel