[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hardcoded LP version in *2ly scripts?

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Hardcoded LP version in *2ly scripts?
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:14:41 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:30:55AM -0700, Colin Campbell wrote:
> 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,

Yes, this is correct.

> and all are hardwired to a specific version.

Yes, this is correct and done in the GUB building.

> > PS virtually nobody runs "make install", and I certainly wouldn't
> > expect a new contributor to do this.
> It seems easy enough to me; the instructions in the CG are clear, as to
> building, anyway.

Yes, but obviously you got into trouble somehow.  :)

> 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 don't think it's worth it.  Users should use GUB.  Contributors
should use lilydev and never run 'make install'.  I should go back
to working on Critical issues, or at least improve the CG for
testing patches for regression failures.

If anybody is seriously interested in the build system details,
the source is there; me spending a few hours trying to explain it
would be less useful than spending that time towards getting 2.14

> > 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!

I was sleeping for 18 hours a day, which was fairly restful.  I
wouldn't call it "happy", but at least I'm well now!

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]