Re: anyone got lilypond 2.16.2 to work on Windows Vista?

[Trevor Daniels]

Robert Honore wrote Friday, August 02, 2013 12:00 AM

>> On 02/08/13 05:49, Robert Honore wrote:
>>> Even if I try to double-click on the lilypond icon right now, the result
>>> I get is that the lilypond executable appears to start, and then it
>>> seems to just sit there.  Then I would use the task manager to see if
>>> the executable ran at all, and I would find (on the "Processes" tab)
>>> that indeed it is running.  When I look at the the columns for I/O
>>> reads, I/O writes, I/O read bytes, and I/O write bytes, I see that it
>>> did one I/O write, with about 2.5 MB of data written.  That is what I
>>> lazily referred to by "2.5 MB".
>>> If I invoke lilypond by the other two methods, I get the same result.
>>> 
>> What do you see if you open a command prompt and run Lilypond with an ly 
>> file as the parameter:
>> 
>> lilypond somefile.ly
>> 
>> See http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/usage/command_002dline-usage
> 
> Sorry about the long delayed reply.  I reverted to 2.12.3 and now I am
> still getting problems, even with input that I was previously able to
> process successfully.  I've _got_ to be doing something wrong.
> 
> To answer your question more directly, I first ran the command,
> "lilypond --version" at the command line.  After a very long time, it
> returned the following text.
> [Quoted_Output]
> GNU LilyPond 2.12.3
> 
> Copyright (c) 1996--2009 by
>  Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>
>  Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden>
>  and others.
> 
> This program is free software.  It is covered by the GNU General Public
> License and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it
> under certain conditions.  Invoke as `lilypond --warranty' for more
> information.
> [/Quoted_Output]
> 
> This (the long wait) is not the behaviour I am accustomed to seeing, so
> now I am wondering how to get a clean installation.
> 
> Right now, I just want to get back a working lilypond installation.

The first time LilyPond is executed after a fresh install can take
longer than subsequent runs if it needs to rewrite or refresh the
cached fonts.  This is probably the write of 2.5Mb of data.  But
subsequent runs should be much shorter.

Trevor