[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution
From: |
Thomas Morley |
Subject: |
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution |
Date: |
Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:57:27 +0100 |
Hi,
2012/2/29 Thomas Morley <address@hidden>:
> TODO
>
> Convert:
> Converting some files gave:
> "Not smart enough to convert minimum-Y-extent.
> Vertical spacing no longer depends on the Y-extent of a VerticalAxisGroup.
> Please refer to the manual for details, and update manually."
> (or sth similiar).
> Could be fixed.
I changed my mind about these files and fixed them too.
I used a little script after the script from CG 7.7 Updating LSR to a
new version to ease the process:
#!/bin/bash
for LILYFILE in *.ly
do
STEM=$(basename "$LILYFILE" .ly);
echo "running $LILYFILE...";
convert-ly -e -t2.14.2 "$LILYFILE" >& "$STEM".txt;
done
One file gives me problems: forcing-fixed-distance-between-staves.ly
converting-log:
convert-ly (GNU LilyPond) 2.15.30
convert-ly: Processing `forcing-fixed-distance-between-staves.ly'...
Applying conversion: 2.12.3, 2.13.0, 2.13.1, 2.13.4,
Not smart enough to convert alignment-offsets.
alignment-offsets has been changed to alignment-distances:
you must now specify the distances between staves rather than the
offset of staves.
Please refer to the manual for details, and update manually.
2.13.10, 2.13.16, 2.13.18, 2.13.20, 2.13.27, 2.13.29, 2.13.31,
2.13.36, 2.13.39,
2.13.40, 2.13.42, 2.13.44, 2.13.46, 2.13.48, 2.13.51, 2.14.0
Well, it compiles without warning but it does nothing (as opposed to 2.12.3).
Currently I don't know how to receive the promised results with the
2.14.2-commands.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
Harm
forcing-fixed-distance-between-staves.ly
Description: Text Data
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, (continued)
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Phil Holmes, 2012/02/27
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/27
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/27
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/28
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Phil Holmes, 2012/02/29
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution,
Thomas Morley <=
- Message not available
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/27
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/25
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/25
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/25
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/24
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/25
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/19