Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:13:56PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> In my opinion, the whole lybook-db stuff needs to go. Instead, Lilypond >> is run _once_ for all snippets of a lybook source, generating _one_ >> PostScript file. > > ... so instead of only generating snippets it needs, you want to > generate a full set of snippets for each language, thereby making > "make doc" take roughly 5 times as long as it currently does?
Wrong. Thereby making "make doc" do about 5 times the real work as it currently does, taking a fraction of the time. That's not just theory. preview-latex, an old project of mine, does it that way. The speed difference to generating and processing individual eps files is much much higher than 5. > AFAIK, lybook-db solves that problem. It's a dead end that admittedly lies downhill from the starting problem. >> Then GhostScript is run _once_ to generate a bunch of eps files, or >> a multi-page PDF file with all graphics in them which get referenced >> as needed. > > This might be a good step. Although I'm not certain if it'll work > for the html output -- we *want* separate pngs for each snippet. GhostScript is perfectly fine with creating hundreds of pngs per run. >> The resulting speed will be such that saving time via the lybook-db >> is not a concern. This would make the pre-push sanity tests so much >> easier that it would not be funny. >> >> And would definitely simplify the build system. > > I am against this right now. We are in a complete mess, and we do not > need to add to that mess. Good argument against cleaning up. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
