Am 03.03.2016 um 12:33 schrieb Bernard:
Hi David,
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.
Correct.
Frescobaldi can be installed without Lilypond, but will have less, or
no value if there is no Lilypond version installed.
Correct.
The Lilypond version 2.18.2 and Frescobaldi version 2.18.2 has no
direct relation with each other.
Yes, it's a mere coincidence that they *right now* happen to be the same.
Lilypond has no dependency with Frescobaldi.
Yes.
Frescobaldi has no (technical or installation) dependency with
Lilypond, but it has a functional dependency with Lilypond.
Yes. Frescobaldi is one possible "frontend" for LilyPond.
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.
The LilyPond installation is really trouble-less, and I have the feeling
that all the confusion came up because someone mixed LilyPond and
Frescobaldi.
If you don't want to install LilyPond using apt-get (for example because
you are recommended to use a newer version) you can simply download the
installation script and run it using "sh path/to/downloaded/script.sh".
This will install LilyPond locally in your user account. There are no
further dependencies or the need of administrator rights.
The only thing that *may* be needed is to add the ~/bin directory to
your $PATH.
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.
As said, for installing LilyPond there are no further requirements.
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?
You should definitely get in touch with Sharon Rosner (also on this
list) because he has done a lot in that direction recently (at least for
LilyPond).
Best
Urs
With regards,
Bernard
On 03-03-16 06:40, David Wright wrote:
On Sun 28 Feb 2016 at 08:29:52 (+0100), Bernard wrote:
Hi Noeck,
Second reply, I was not reading to careful.
http://lilypond.org/unix.html before? There is a small "Install"
section. What was missing for you?
Yes I saw that, but it was missing install from shell. I really
prefer using apt-get because I have bad experience with download
and install because of the depencies hell.
So the message should be "do not us use apt-get because you will
retrieve probably version 2.16.2"
But even better, use a apt-get ppa repository, this you keep u to
date your self, without being dependant of Debian.
I'm not sure what Debian has to do with all this. I thought you were
using ubuntu (in the subject line).
The current (jessie/stable) version of LilyPond (LP) is 2.18.2.
The current (jessie/stable) version of Frescobaldi (F) is 2.0.13.
AIUI there is no LP version dependency of Debian's F 2.0.13:
Depends: python (>= 2.7), python (<< 2.8), lilypond,
python-poppler-qt4, python-qt4, python-pypm, tango-icon-theme
I have tried out Debian's F with lilypond.org's LP 2.19.36 with no
problems AFAICT.
Like : https://launchpad.net/~frescobaldi/+archive/ubuntu/ppa (but
the status is unknown, and out of date)
This info is inconsistent with the Frescobaldi info, and my
assumption was Frescobaldi was correct. Which was wrong.
- Should it mention the --prefix option?
It would help, for me that was not crucial.
- Should it mention that you can have several versions installed in
parallel?
Yes it sure does. Because I had version 2.16.2 was installed and
Frescobaldi urge to uninstall previous version of python-ly because
it can cause inconsistency. Unfortunately I can not recall where I
found that info.
This is presumably F-speak. AFAIK Debian has only packaged this as
python3-ly and it's not in jessie/stable. This may be why the latter's
version of F is old.
- Was only the Frescobaldi settings part new to you? Should it be
mentioned?
Yes it would. Installing Frescobaldi does install Lilypond, which is
very convenient, if it was the correct Lilypond version.
Frescobaldi should mention only the old version is installed, and go
the the Lilypond website for info how to install Lilypond 2.18.2.
It's not clear to me what is meant by "correct LP version" or
"Frescobaldi should mention...". Earlier in the thread, Joram points
to http://lilypond.org/unix.html and implies that he has something to
do with its maintenance. (See below.) But that's for LP. There's also
http://frescobaldi.org/download which has instructions about
installing F's dependencies. Is that the page you wish to improve?
If so, you have to bear in mind that people's idea of "correct LP
version" could vary widely.
On that page, there is a link to http://frescobaldi.org/links#distros
which seems to be very out of date. For example it mentions
Debian "testing" with a link to
http://packages.debian.org/nl/squeeze/editors/frescobaldi
That's about six years or three distributions out of date.
I can't find any statement that says you don't need a specific version
of LP to install with a given version of F. It just so happens that at
the moment the stable version of LP (2.18.2) is the same as the
stable version of F (2.18.2 since December 26th, 2015). Perhaps
this is all the more reason to point out that LP from 2.16 to 2.19
will all run with F 2.18.2 (and older versions too).
On 27-02-16 19:11, Noeck wrote:
Hi Bernard,
Am 27.02.2016 um 18:54 schrieb Bernard:
Wow, Joram. Thank you very much. Did this work.
Glad it helped you.
Update the installation documentation with your info would help
very much.
There was a similar question just a few days ago, so I take this
request
for improvement seriously. Did you find the Linux download page
http://lilypond.org/unix.html before? There is a small "Install"
section. What was missing for you?
- Should it mention the --prefix option?
- Should it mention that you can have several versions installed in
parallel?
- Was only the Frescobaldi settings part new to you? Should it be
mentioned?
Cheers,
David.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user