Re: DOCS: include a sample "Makefile"?

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <address@hidden>, John Mandereau 
<address@hidden> writes
> address@hidden a écrit :
> > If you use GNU extensions, then here's the Makefile I generally use,
> > to convert everything in the current directory.
> Your makefile is certainly useful for many pruposes, but it doesn't 
> take included files into account:
> it will try to build those who have a .ly extension, which may do 
> nothing at best (when there is no
> \score block or toplevel music expression) or crash at worst (if some 
> included files rely on the
> fact that some variables are already defined in another file which is 
> included in some higher level file);
> it will also ignore any dependencies on included files not named *.ly 
> or in other directories, which
> is a bit annoying for a makefile. Maybe we should recommend naming 
> included files with extension
> .ily rather than .ly in the LM, e.g. in "Suggestions for writing 
> LilyPond files"?

My lily files all start with an identifier as to what sort of file they 
are. So all of my notes are in a voiceInstrument.ly file. The actual 
part definition that produces the pdf is in a partInstrument.ly file. So 
I could just use "part*.ly" as my wildcard for the files I actually 
wanted make to run on.

That's an alternative to creating a new .ily extension, though that is a 
good idea - it would make it a lot harder to run lily on a file that 
wasn't meant to be done stand-alone :-)

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - address@hidden