lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)


From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:38:53 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "Reinhold Kainhofer" <address@hidden>
To: "Werner LEMBERG" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (probable 2?)


Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 18:56:36 schrieben Sie:
> However, in the docs build, we are not interested in how lilypond
> works internally, but rather where a doc build fails due to bad
> input in a .ly or .tely file.

I suggest a different route: Normally, after an error message has been
emitted, a developer wants to debug the problem.  In most cases, the
problem is with the lilypond binary itself,

That's where I would disagree. Typically a *doc* build fails due to a typo in
the documentation (i.e. wrong lilypond code in an example included in the
docs).

All problems with the lilypond binary itself should have already failed the
regtests (in theory, of course).

What about reducing the verbosity as much as possible, but make
lilypond-book emit something like:

   Error `foo' encountered while processing file `file-XXX'!
   lilypond's error message: blablabla
   The used command line was

      FOO=bar lilypond --pdf -d... -d... file-XXX.ly

   A command line to debug the problem can be found in file
   `file-XXX-debug.sh'.

if an error is happening?

Yes, that would be *extremely* helpful (not only for the lilypond
documentation, but also to other lilypond-book users). The only question is:
who will implement it? ;-)

This is the sort of thing I'm looking at, once the discussion about what is needed is complete.


--
Phil Holmes





reply via email to

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