On Mon, 2022-07-18 at 11:15 +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote: > Le 17/07/2022 à 17:03, David Sumbler a écrit : > > > > Is it the intention that the next "stable" version of Lilypond will > > be > > packaged in this new way? Will the shell script be done away with > > there too? > > > > Even if not, what are the perceived advantages of this change for > > the > > development versions, at least? > > Yes, all new versions of LilyPond will use this packaging. Getting > rid of the .sh script was not the only change; it was actually a > wholesale switch to a new compilation system, which is now 100× > simpler and more reliable, and now creates static binaries. Before, > a .sh installer was required, because once installed the binaries > couldn't be moved around. Now that they can, it is just unnecessary. > > Not having a .sh installer has other advantages, too. It avoids > conflicts with distro packages. It makes the installation process > exactly the same across all OSes. It prevents people from shooting > themselves in the foot by not realizing that several versions of > LilyPond can be installed in parallel.
I should think that most users only use one version at a time, unless they have the understanding to help in testing development versions, in which case they would probably know that they can have several versions. > I think you are overcomplicating things by trying to mimic > the previous installation process with the new binaries. > Changing /usr/local/ is normally done by package managers > and dedicated tools, not by hand. If you don't know what > you're doing there, don't touch it. (This kind of advice applies > to any command using sudo, actually.) I merely moved the new installation to the place where it would have been put by the script, had there been one. I have successfully administered my own Linux boxes for the last 20 years or so without any major mishaps... > Instead, follow these simple steps. (I agree that _finding_ them > is not simple, but again it will eventually be in the learning > manual, with screenshots. That change has landed and will appear > in the next release.) > > 1. Download the archive. > 2. Unpack it. > 3. Move the lilypond-2.23.10 directory inside it in your > home folder. > 4. In your .emacs, change the path in (expand-file-name ...) > to "~/lilypond-2.23.10/share/emacs/site-lisp". > > And that's all. Thanks for those clear instructions. And having set up an alias, as suggested by David W., I found that typing 'lilypond' in a bash terminal produces the expected result. However, this is not something I often do. My usual work pattern is to edit .ly files etc. in emacs, and then to use the Lilypond-mode command C-c C-l or C-c C-f to produce a PDF or Postscript file. Unfortunately I found that this now just produces an error message, such as: lilypond /home/david/Cloud/LilyPond/test.ly /bin/bash: line 1: lilypond: command not found Compilation exited abnormally with code 127 at Tue Jul 19 16:07:42 I eventually realized that having the alias included in .bashrc was not working because this is only for interactive shells. But I have tried putting it in .bash_profile, logging out and then logging in again, and this doesn't work either. If somebody can suggest how I get emacs-mode Lilypond-command-lilypond and Lilypond-command-formatps to work, it will be very much appreciated, as always. David
