Re: compilation error

[Mats Bengtsson]

Aredridel wrote:
> > What to do?  Maybe we should just change the 'do not compile' attitude
> > a bit, and have 'supported' development platforms with a detailed
> > recipe to compile lily.  The contributers of binary releases should
> > make sure that the recipe stays up to date.  Would this work?
>
>
> I'd like that attitude change.  Lilypond is not -that- hard to compile
> -- it's easier than Mozilla, easier than GNOME, easier than TeX itself.
> The dependencies are not well documented in the docs, but the recipe
> itself isn't too hard (I have it in .spec form for making RPMs for the
> PLD distribution) -- once you get the prerequisites, the rest fairly
> flies, especially if you're ignoring packaging issues.

I actually find that the depencies are well documented in INSTALL.txt,
what information did you miss?
Of course, it may sometimes be tricky to find out what RPM/.dpkg
contains the necessary programs and files but that's hardly a
LilyPond problem.

   /Mats