Re: [Spam??] Problem building doc section without built LilyPond

[Urs Liska]

Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2013, 17:34 +0100 schrieb Trevor Daniels:
> Urs Liska wrote Monday, April 15, 2013 5:07 PM
> 
> >> I have the impression that (with my previous patch about .itely and 
> >> .itexi files) doc-section.sh should work with both, and it should be 
> >> possible to completely remove cg-section.sh (and of course update the 
> >> doc).
> >>
> >> If you think that's true I could do that, make a patch and suggest it 
> >> for inclusion.
> >> Otherwise I'd just add the necessary comments to complement my current 
> >> (not-yet-sent) patch.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Urs
> > OK, what the heck:
> > Here is a patch trying to fix the lilypond-book issue in doc-section.sh, 
> > along with a comment in the CG.
> > If I have time I'll look into the other BUILD_DIRECTORY dependencies.
> > And if you can confirm my impression I would also make a patch removing 
> > cg-section.sh and the reference in the CG.
> 
> Urs, sorry for the late reply.  I've got a chest infection which means I'm
> not feeling too bright at the moment.  When I improve I'll try out the
> patch you attached.
Hey, then "Gute Besserung" (no translation available ...)

> 
> The main use of doc-section.sh is for Windows users who cannot easily
> build the docs, and at the moment I'm the only one doing that, I think,
> and I have my own local variant anyway.  
Well, it seems it is also practical for me. I'm feeling like getting
slightly more involved than posting 'documentation suggestions' to
bug-lilypond, but as this will for the time being only mean single
changes to individual sections It doesn't seem necessary to set up
building the whole documentation.

> What I suggest is you make the
> changes you suggest and test them out under Linux, then pass them to me
> and I'll see if they work within the MinGW Bash shell under Windows
> (well, under Vista as that's all I have).

I made these changes to my local copy of the git repo, and it works so
far (on Debian Linux).
It isn't a 'professional' and once-and-for-all fix, but it improves the
script in that it reduces the amount of cases the script will fail. And
I didn't notice any side-effects.

If you look into it please also consider the cg-section.sh issue I
mentioned. If you confirm my impression/opinion I'd be glad to enhance
my patch and remove that script and update the documentation accordingly
(you see, I'm eager to supply my first substantial patch (my previous
and very first patch was a totally neglectable typo in a translation).

Best
Urs
> 
> Trevor