Re: lybook-db etc etc.

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:13:56PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> In my opinion, the whole lybook-db stuff needs to go.  Instead, Lilypond
> is run _once_ for all snippets of a lybook source, generating _one_
> PostScript file.

... so instead of only generating snippets it needs, you want to
generate a full set of snippets for each language, thereby making
"make doc" take roughly 5 times as long as it currently does?
AFAIK, lybook-db solves that problem.

>  Then GhostScript is run _once_ to generate a bunch of
> eps files, or a multi-page PDF file with all graphics in them which get
> referenced as needed.

This might be a good step.  Although I'm not certain if it'll work
for the html output -- we *want* separate pngs for each snippet.

> The resulting speed will be such that saving time via the lybook-db is
> not a concern.  This would make the pre-push sanity tests so much easier
> that it would not be funny.
> 
> And would definitely simplify the build system.

I am against this right now.  We are in a complete mess, and we do
not need to add to that mess.  The best change to the doc build
system would be to implement the log system as discussed in the
GOP issue, so that we can tell people exactly which bit of
lilypond input killed the build.  That information is EASY for the
computer to gather, but RIDICULOUSLY HARD for humans to gather.

Once we have that working, and once we have automatic tests in
place, *then* we can start breaking things again.

- Graham