Josiah Boothby wrote: > On 4/5/07, Valentin Villenave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello everybody, hello Jason, >> >> I would like to add my 2 cents here: though LilyPond syntax evolves >> indeed very quickly, you'll always be able to find the version of >> LilyPond which was in use when you first typed your score, on >> http://lilypond.org/web/install/older-versions or >> http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/sources/ >> >> This is why open-Source gives some "guarantees" (well, relatively at >> least) you won't be able to find with any other proprietary software: > > Just to clarify one small thing: I think that it would be nearly > impossible -- or at least extraordinarily difficult -- to compile on a > modern distribution of Linux a sufficiently old version of Lilypond so > that ancient .ly files can be used directly. The nice thing about the > old ly files is that the syntax is usually similar enough that if > convert-ly doesn't work, most of the note-entry should be > straightforward to reuse, leaving organization and tweaking to be done > (for me, that usually takes about half of the time of preparing a > score, so that's not so bad). >
Don't the new distributions *include* all the dependencies? The FreeBSD and Windows packages seem to. I don't have an extra box to experiment with though. In any case, I agree that the note entry syntax doesn't change and that represents (for me anyway) 90% of the work. I will still rely on Lilypond for archival scores. Proprietary software won't cut it (as explained earlier) and MusicXML seems insanely verbose to me. The snippet at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicXML is way too long just to get a clef, time signature, and middle C. Cheers! -- Aaron Dalton | Super Duper Games [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://superdupergames.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
