Re: Python path

[Mats Bengtsson]

My experience is that the native Python installation has always worked 
better
than the python bundled with LilyPond, so for that reason I don't see 
any problems
to move lilypond to the end of the PATH. However, I'm more worried about
Ghostscript dependencies, especially if the user happens to have Cygwin
included in the PATH (I'm not sure how common that is, though).
The native Windows Ghostscript executable is called gswin32.exe so that
shouldn't be a problem, though.

   /Mats

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>
>   
> > > Also, I wonder what would make the Lilypond version "wobbly".
> > >       
> > We cross-compile Python on a linux box, using the MinGW GCC
> > compiler. All sorts of things tend to go wrong when creating when
> > creating python modules from windows DLLs.
> >     
>
> Wobbly or not, it works and we have some sort of control over it.  We
> have absolutely no idea what the python in front of the path is?
>
> The question is: how much do we want to make sure that lilypond just
> works after installation, and how much do we want to break someone's
> python preference?
>
> Jan.
>
>   

--
=============================================
        Mats Bengtsson
        Signal Processing
        Signals, Sensors and Systems
        Royal Institute of Technology
        SE-100 44  STOCKHOLM
        Sweden
        Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463                         
       Fax:   (+46) 8 790 7260
        Email: address@hidden
        WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe
=============================================