bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Issue 938 in lilypond: building lilypond omf files: what, why, how,


From: lilypond
Subject: Re: Issue 938 in lilypond: building lilypond omf files: what, why, how, etc
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:55:37 +0000

Updates:
        Labels: -Type-Documentation Type-Other

Comment #3 on issue 938 by percival.music.ca: building lilypond omf files: what, why, how, etc
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=938

How are they used: I mean, does anybody use them? If I go to a repository of open-source manuals (do those exist?), is lilypond listed? Does redhat use them to help the packaging? in short, would anybody notice if we dropped support for them
entirely?

are the generated correctly?  on my local system, I see:
  <creator>

  </creator>
  <maintainer>
   gperciva (None)
  </maintainer>
  <title>
is that correct? What does it say on the official, distributed, version? Are the omf files actually included in the official, distributed version? If not, then it
seems obvious that we can just junk them.


Valentin:
This isn't an issue that can be solved by editing texinfo, ly, or scm files, so it's not documentation. I'm clarifying this distinction in the new bug classifications. We're not just "documenting it somewhere", because it's not clear what the answer
those questions _is_.

Look, it's not an urgent issue. It has the lowest possible priority. I don't care if nobody looks at this for another year. But if you *do* look into it, I want
everything answered.

--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings




reply via email to

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