Re: install frescoba 2.18.2 in Ubuntu

[David Wright]

On Thu 03 Mar 2016 at 12:33:18 (+0100), Bernard wrote:
> Thanks for your, and also others, replies Lilypond and Frescbaldi
> works for me now, but this effort of you and others is meant to let
> Frescobadi and Lilypond be installed easily for everybody. I feel
> this effort is good. And I would like to help.
> 
> Lets go one step back. The mail is about dependencies. Software X,
> with version Y should work. Should work; a tricky statement. A lot
> of discussions are communicating about versions, and installations
> steps and results on that steps. The knowledge is with you all, but
> how to easily communicate this knowledge with beginners using
> Lilypond and Frescobaldi. How do you know precise what the status is
> of the computer of the person who asked the question?
> 
> Let me make a summery of my knowledge, please correct me I am wrong.
> As far as I can tell Lilypond can be installed without Frescobaldi,
> and does not require Frescobadli to be used. Frescobaldi can be
> installed without Lilypond, but will have less, or no value if there
> is no Lilypond version installed. The Lilypond version 2.18.2 and
> Frescobaldi version 2.18.2 has no direct relation with each other.
> Lilypond has no dependency with Frescobaldi. Frescobaldi has no
> (technical or installation) dependency with Lilypond, but it has a
> functional dependency with Lilypond.

I think you have to qualify this statement if you're talking about
linux systems, where most people will be using a distribution of
some sort. You have to point out that you're talking about installing
from source or the independent download, into anywhere but /usr/bin/.
Otherwise there's likely to be a package dependency of F on LP, as
I quoted in Debian earlier in the thread.

> Installation troubles is not unique to Lilypond and frustrates me. I
> do not want to check my self what my system resources are in detail.
> And have to find a way to retrieve those resources. On the other
> hand, you should not spend valuable time to figure out what
> resources a user has. Just compare your installation with there
> installation and it must (not should) work. Of course systems are
> never equal, that make comparing more complicated. But also more
> attractive to be automated.

Yes, but whose installation do you compare it with? Me, running
Debian's F 2.0.13 on Debian's LP 2.18.2 and lilypond's LP 2.19.36
with python-ly installed from Debian's testing distribution? Or
someone else running openSUSE with a different mix?

> I am a Python programmer and already thinking about these problems a
> lot. I might develop an open source program to do that. If the
> resources check will be Ok Lilypond always can be installed
> according to the instruction. So not should, but is. Of course first
> knowledge has to be gathered of knowledgeable people like you to say
> in detail what is required. And user will execute that test, and it
> might be that sometimes a specific configuration still does not
> work. This info will be added, so the test will be more accurate,
> using all the info users might share.
> In short the output should be falsifiability (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ). "Should work" is not
> falsifiable. "Does work" is.
> 
> This is a lot of work, first because the program itself should have
> none or as less as possible dependencies itself. Second the user
> interfaces should very user friendly.
> 
> Is there interest for such a support program for Lilypond and Frescobaldi?

If you can pull it off, that would be most useful. It could run
through a checklist of things that need to be supported and try each
of them out in turn for the expected result.

If it finds functionality that's missing, it could give the name of
the binary/library concerned and suggest ways of finding out which
distribution package (in the first instance) would support it.

Cheers,
David.