Re: Hardcoded LP version in *2ly scripts?

[Colin Campbell]

On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 04:21 +0000, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 08:52:44PM -0700, Colin Campbell wrote:
> > I had occasion to try and run convert-ly (from Frescobaldi, but
> > LIlyPondTool was the same) over a piece I'd opened in Denemo then saved
> > as a .ly file. Convert-ly promptly threw an error about not finding
> > lilylib.  After a bit of a look around, I found that convert-ly had
> > version 2.13.30 hardwired into a piece of code which looks as though it
> > is appending to a PATH.
> 
> I'm guessing that the last GUB you installed was 2.13.30?

I may have installed a GUB build in a fit of curiousity; generally, I
just update lilypond-git with git pull -r then rebuild and install.
> 
> > Changing the version by hand ( to 2.13.44)
> > allowed convert-ly to run.  I also manually deleted all trace of
> > lilypond, did a fresh git clone and rebuilt; the python scripts now have
> > the current version. I haven't tested the case of uninstalling the
> > outdated version, then installing the new build.
> 
> Hmm.  This sounds weird, but at the moment I don't think it's
> unreasonable to suspect a discrepancy in the GUB install vs. make
> install.  I'm not saying that you didn't see some kind of a
> problem, but if convert-ly as compiled in GUB was broken, I would
> expect to have seen tons of reports about it.

Convert-ly was the one which got me into tracing the issue; it looks as
though *all* the related *2ly routines have the same code, and all are
hardwired to a specific version.
> 
> If you're particularly curious about this, then go ahead and look
> into precisely what path the convert-ly you're running is in, and
> precisely what PYTHONPATH or PYTHONHOME it's using, and precisely
> what's in those directories... but I don't see this being a good
> effort-vs-payoff exchange.
> 

Perhaps a bit of spare time might come about, although with
grand-nippers and Christmas . . .
> 
> PS virtually nobody runs "make install", and I certainly wouldn't
> expect a new contributor to do this.  The only people running
> "make install" should be linux package creators, and extremely
> advanced users who are both very familiar with unix software and
> too impatient to wait a week or two until the next devel release.
> 

It seems easy enough to me; the instructions in the CG are clear, as to
building, anyway.

Perhaps a bit of description around the difference between a GUB build
(get it on line, all scripts current to the same version etc.) and a
local one (keep it separate from installed version, you're on your own,
if burn your butt you sit on blisters) would be in order?

> I will clarify this in the next revision of the "quick start"
> instructions, for which I will hopefully feel healthy enough to
> write tomorrow.
> 

Get well soon, Graham, and I hope your Christmas is a happy and restful
one!

Colin


-- 
Paranoid schizophrenics outnumber their enemies at least two to one. -
Dan Galvin, Thought For The Day, February 9, 2007