lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: GUB to build mingw 2.12.x still possible?


From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: GUB to build mingw 2.12.x still possible?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:17:55 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 06:52:53PM +0100, Nils Gey wrote:
> 
> is it still possible to use GUB to build lilypond stable 2.12.3? 

I believe so, but the last time I tried it was 2 months ago.

> Simply using the release tarball or the stable branch from git does not work 
> because of autoconf and the spec file.
> 
>     
> /mnt/sdb3/workdir/gub-mingw/gub/target/mingw/src/lilypond-git.sv.gnu.org--lilypond.git-stable-2.12/autogen.sh:
>  line 36: autoconf: unbound variable

What OS / version of autoconf ?

I know that GUB should (in theory) build autoconf itself, but
perhaps it's picking up autoconf from your local system.  Also,
what does that file contain?  (especially at line 36)


Later on in the build process, you'll want to read
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/release-extra-notes

> We @ Denemo can't take the responsibility to release with a unstable 2.13 
> lilypond win32 binary build from a random and unknown state of Lilyponds git 
> master branch.

Given that 2.13 is an unstable development version, there's no
reason that you should do so.  And if you really wanted to build
2.13, I'd recommend the release/unstable branch.  Or doing
specific tags.


However, be aware that GUB is held together with duct tape and
prayers (and often curses).  I have no confidence that it can
build on a redhat machine or debian x64 box.  I use it on ubuntu
9.04, with a 64-bit CPU, but running i386 (long story, both for
ubuntu (bleh) and i386).  I'd absolutely love it if GUB could run
on any linux machine, but solving any problems with different
distros are going to be a huge pain.

> We ran into several problems because of API- and behaviour- changes (for 
> examples Titles and Author changed from 2.12 -> 2.13 or the placement of 
> chord-symbols was broken suddenly, spamming all non-chord notes with "NA" 
> above it and places the chord symbols right into the staff ) 

Bug reports are appreciated, unless if was a deliberate change.

Cheers,
- Graham




reply via email to

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