> long as you're aware of the issue, I'm sure that you can find a
#Lilypond makefile how to#
> I have no suggestions about how to do this in a nice way, but as > files, we'd want to point lilypond-general links at. > HTML files within the tarball, whereas in the for-upload html > For those tarballs, we'd want to generate HTML files that point to Unlike the web site, this will work out of the box.
#Lilypond makefile pdf#
> (it might be nice to offer downloadable HTML and pdf tarballs). I'm slightly concerned about the downloadable tarball I might refuse to do it myself without stronger justifications. I don't and I can't put my veto on this, but
> build system, not to mention the ongoing risk or ongoing "check > "you" P) need to add little quirks to so many portions of the > repositories as a general rule, but I really think that this is a > I agree that generated files shouldn't be added to source If youĬompare this with current master branch history weight (a bit less thanĦ0 Mb), that can potentially bloat up the history. This will make 704 Kb evey time the examples are updated. > avoid adding 704 Kb to the git tracker? > (actually, I guess this would need to be a special-case option for > special rule for when running texi2html on the website > All in all, we'd need to check the output all the time, write a > - we want to show an expanded image upon click (possibly via > - we DO NOT want to show the input code. Texinfo document so it would be difficult to do anything else :-) > - requires lilypond (could be problems for a distinct web repo)īut this won't be in a distinct repo, and you designed lilypond-general Hey, this would probably mean the web site should beīuild in stable branch, which fits the need to make links from the web I think putting more responsability for releases, which is not such aīad thing IMHO. > another thing to have a bug resulting in ugly examples on the > It's one thing to have some bugs show up in the manual it's > (yes, getting this started again is a priority in GOP) > from time to time - especially since IMO nobody is actually > never merge any patches that break any regtests, but it happens
> - this is a really "courageous" regression test. > I disagree blocks have a few problems for this case: Le mercredi 22 juillet 2009 à 21:46 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit : Re: Directory structure for docs and web site The extension says python-ly is required for the extension "LilyPond Formatter", which was automatically added to VSCode when I installed VSLilyPond.Re: Directory structure for docs and web site lilypond-devel I already had python installed and on my path, but that would be an additional desired setup for installing python-ly via pip. Instructions for doing that can be found by clicking on your operating system here.
the folder that the lilypond executable lives in needs to be added to your path). They will tell you that LilyPond should be setup for command-line usage (i.e. I mentioned the following in a comment on the OP, but it's important to follow these setup instructions for VSLilyPond. I haven't tried out the midi functionality yet, but things so far seem to be in working order. view the generated pdf music notation in VSCode.ly files, which automatically compiles them into pdfs (without logs) This software allows me to point VSCode at a folder and:
#Lilypond makefile install#
(Had to install VSCode as it looks like there's no such LilyPond plugin for regular VS.) I just set this up on my machine so that I could verify things worked as expected.
0 kommentar(er)
