Re: Windows tutorial

[David Kastrup]

Colin Campbell <address@hidden> writes:

> On 13-08-11 01:18 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Colin Campbell <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> On 13-08-11 10:21 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Campbell" <address@hidden>
>>>> To: <address@hidden>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 5:06 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Windows tutorial
>>>>> Is it the non-optimised builds which fail? For a data point, I
>>>>> renamed my ~/lilypond-git then used lily-git.tcl to recreate it,
>>>>> after which I went through the rest of the build as normal. All I
>>>>> saw were the usual warnings about typing and some circular
>>>>> references, but both the binary build and make doc completed
>>>>> normally, producing a binary which reports as version 2.17.24 and
>>>>> corresponding documentation.
>>>> In saying "it would require the ability to make doc" I was referring
>>>> to the fact that, for quite a few contributors, it just takes too
>>>> long.  I can fiddle a make doc by editing orchestra.ly, completing
>>>> the make and then undoing the edit.
>>>>
>>>> My system is Ubuntu 10.04 with 64 bit, but I don't know what makes
>>>> my build fail and others not.
>>> So, we have two systems performing repeatably: your Ubuntu 10.04
>>> 64-bit and my Linux Mint 15 64-bit Ubuntu derivative. Perhaps there is
>>> some way of narrowing the (probably many) differences between our
>>> systems?
>> While they are performing repeatably: can I just get a data point on
>> current master?  I committed another change.  Granted, it's not really
>> likely to make a difference when unoptimized builds fail as well, but it
>> still would be nice to hear back.
>>
>
> Just got back to my machine after a successful clean build of binary
> and doc (into a new /lilypond-git from lily-git.tcl), again with only
> the usual warnings on the console. The lily-git console reported the
> current head at d8f308 Avoid Scheme-computed skylines.

Oh, "again with only the usual warnings"?  I thought that "repeatably"
was supposed to mean repeatably crashing.  Any news from those who had
reliable crashes to show?

-- 
David Kastrup