|
From: | Phil Holmes |
Subject: | Re: python 2.6 in GUB Re: LilyPond-Book on Windows |
Date: | Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:44:19 +0100 |
To: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>Cc: "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <address@hidden>; "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>; "Br. Samuel Springuel" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; "Julien Rioux" <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 2:42 AM Subject: python 2.6 in GUB Re: LilyPond-Book on Windows
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:53:04AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> writes: > David Kastrup writes: >>> So my first impulse would be to throw out the workaround for 2.4.2 >> that> > Let's do that. Well, issue 1933 <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1933> would suggest that this is a bad idea. Nothing substantially has changed since then. I'm currently trying to get the TEXINPUTS stuff integrated into the Mingw fix to arrive back at a working lilypond-book, but of course it is to be hoped that moving Python forward to 2.6 might make that problem go away. But it will take longer to figure that out.Doesn't Julien have GUB with python 2.6 ready for testing? I would move forward on that before diving into the dark waters of os.popen in python 2.4. I remember bug 1933; it was really annoying. Cheers, - Graham
I should be able to test GUB with Julien's Python 2.6 later this week. I'd just like to check the process. I click the "Merge pull request" at https://github.com/gperciva/gub/pull/6 and this pushes Julien's changes into the GUB repo? I then pull the GUB repo on my GUB VM and this will get the changes into my version of GUB? I then make lilypond as usual. What if it doesn't work? We then need to test the built binaries: should I put them on my own website for people to grab and test, or do a normal upload?
--Phil Holmes
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |