Re: lilypond-book refactor patch

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> No.  Unfortunately, I just don't get excited about being on the bleeding
> edge of every package like you guys do.  I'm working off the binary rpm
> version of lilypond.  (Which means these patches are against the
> post-path-substituted version of lilypond-book.)
> 
> If you could point me at an rpm of mftrace, it would help a lot.  (I'm
> running fedora core 3, if it matters.)  I did a lilypond-2.4 compile on
> Jan 31, and that was worst thing to compile.  This was a non-root
> installation, so I had to compile _everything_ to get versions lilypond
> wanted.  Tex was easy; ghostscript was easy; mftrace was an unpleasant
> experience.  For example, I ended up compiling both autotrace and potrace,
> because mftrace would not compile with the first one I tried. (I think I
> tried autotrace first, but I don't remember for sure.)

see 

  http://lilypond.org/download/binaries/Fedora-3/mftrace-1.1.7-1.i386.rpm

I use it with the potrace binary from

  http://potrace.sourceforge.net/

> Anyhow, the html functions in lilypond-book seem a bit neglected, so I
> thought you guys might appreciate some help in that area.

sure we do, but in the past days I've had my share of having to clean
up after patches that have been sent to me untested.  There's a
problem in LilyPond CVS (in lilypond itself) that makes "make web" a
little problematic. I'll try fix that, and look over your patch in the
coming days; however, I would greatly appreciate it if you would give
it a whirl too.


-- 

 Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen