Build issue in Fedora due to font changes
With the latest release of the UFW fonts, they've dropped the Cyrillic glyphs due to poor quality. I see that both 2.18.x and 2.19.x still need ufw's ru fonts, and so lilypond fails to build in rawhide. Is there another font set, preferably one in Fedora already, that you'd recommend or are planning to migrate to? The Fedora BZ for reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160132 Thanks, Jon Ciesla, Fedora lilypond maintainer. -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Build issue in Fedora due to font changes
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > With the latest release of the UFW fonts, they've dropped the Cyrillic > glyphs due to poor quality. I see that both 2.18.x and 2.19.x still need > ufw's ru fonts, and so lilypond fails to build in rawhide. Is there > another font set, preferably one in Fedora already, that you'd recommend or > are planning to migrate to? > > The Fedora BZ for reference: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160132 > > Thanks, > Jon Ciesla, Fedora lilypond maintainer. > > -- > http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ > > in your fear, seek only peace > in your fear, seek only love > > -d. bowie > Has anyone had a chance to take a look at this? Thanks, J -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Build issue in Fedora due to font changes
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > >> With the latest release of the UFW fonts, they've dropped the Cyrillic >> glyphs due to poor quality. I see that both 2.18.x and 2.19.x still need >> ufw's ru fonts, and so lilypond fails to build in rawhide. Is there >> another font set, preferably one in Fedora already, that you'd recommend or >> are planning to migrate to? >> >> The Fedora BZ for reference: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160132 >> >> Thanks, >> Jon Ciesla, Fedora lilypond maintainer. >> >> -- >> http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ >> >> in your fear, seek only peace >> in your fear, seek only love >> >> -d. bowie >> > > Has anyone had a chance to take a look at this? > > Thanks, > J > > Sorry for the noise, but have I possibly asked this question in the wrong place? This was what I was directed to do by the website. > -- > http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ > > in your fear, seek only peace > in your fear, seek only love > > -d. bowie > -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Build issue in Fedora due to font changes
Thanks, I'll post to both. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Federico Bruni wrote: > I think that the best place is lilypond-devel. > Werner may also help you > Il 24/nov/2014 16:25 "Knute Snortum" ha scritto: > >> Try posting your question here: >> >> lilypond-u...@gnu.org >> >> >> Knute Snortum >> (via Gmail) >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jon Ciesla >> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Jon Ciesla >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> With the latest release of the UFW fonts, they've dropped the >> Cyrillic >> > >> glyphs due to poor quality. I see that both 2.18.x and 2.19.x still >> need >> > >> ufw's ru fonts, and so lilypond fails to build in rawhide. Is there >> > >> another font set, preferably one in Fedora already, that you'd >> > recommend or >> > >> are planning to migrate to? >> > >> >> > >> The Fedora BZ for reference: >> > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160132 >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, >> > >> Jon Ciesla, Fedora lilypond maintainer. >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ >> > >> >> > >> in your fear, seek only peace >> > >> in your fear, seek only love >> > >> >> > >> -d. bowie >> > >> >> > > >> > > Has anyone had a chance to take a look at this? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > J >> > > >> > > Sorry for the noise, but have I possibly asked this question in the >> wrong >> > place? This was what I was directed to do by the website. >> > >> > >> > > -- >> > > http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ >> > > >> > > in your fear, seek only peace >> > > in your fear, seek only love >> > > >> > > -d. bowie >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ >> > >> > in your fear, seek only peace >> > in your fear, seek only love >> > >> > -d. bowie >> > ___ >> > bug-lilypond mailing list >> > bug-lilypond@gnu.org >> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond >> > >> ___ >> bug-lilypond mailing list >> bug-lilypond@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond >> > -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Build issue in Fedora due to font changes
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > >> > >> With the latest release of the UFW fonts, they've dropped the > >> > >> Cyrillic glyphs due to poor quality. I see that both 2.18.x > >> > >> and 2.19.x still need ufw's ru fonts, and so lilypond fails to > >> > >> build in rawhide. Is there another font set, preferably one > >> > >> in Fedora already, that you'd recommend or are planning to > >> > >> migrate to? > > The best replacement within Lilypond would be the TeXGyre fonts, but > they also don't contain Cyrillic... > > I'm sorry, but I don't know a good alternative that can be used *by > default*. Maybe Lilypond should package the old URW fonts until a > good replacement is available to avoid such dependencies. > > > Werner > Possibly. Until such time as that occurs, is there a way I can disable Cyrillic support temporarily so that Lilypond will continue to build? -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Build issue in Fedora due to font changes
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> Maybe Lilypond should package the old URW fonts until a > >> good replacement is available to avoid such dependencies. > > > > Possibly. Until such time as that occurs, is there a way I can > > disable Cyrillic support temporarily so that Lilypond will continue > > to build? > > There is no way currently. Either solution needs someone who is > willing to invest time for writing a proper patch. I guess that the > former solution is less work. > > > Werner > FYI, Fedora has reverted the urw-fonts change, but this is still something to consider fixing, as the change will need to be made eventually, and on multiple distributions. -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: lilypond 2.19.20 on fedora gs bug
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Masamichi HOSODA
wrote:
> > The Fedora 22 package fails for everyone, the www.lilypond.org version
> > works.
> >
> > I tried this minimal example:
> >
> > % f22test.ly
> > \version "2.19.21"
> > {c'}
> >
> > And then did
> >
> > $ lilypond --ps --verbose f22.ly &> f22test1.txt
> > $ ps2pdf14 f22test.ps f22test.pdf &> f22test2.txt
> >
> > results: see attachment.
> > f22test1.txt f22test2.txt f22test.ps
>
> Thank you for your files.
>
> I suspect an issue of pango package of fedora 22.
>
> First, I've tried your f22test.ps on my environment with gs-9.15.
> It is failed. That is, it is not gs-9.16's issue.
> The result is following.
>
> ```
> $ ps2pdf14 f22test.ps f22test.pdf
> Error: /undefinedresult in --glyphshow--
> Operand stack:
>0.6146 5.6906 -2.8453 space
> Execution stack:
>%interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval--
> --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval--
> --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1967 1 3 %oparray_pop
> 1966 1 3 %oparray_pop 1950 1 3 %oparray_pop 1836 1 3
> %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2
> --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push
> --nostringval-- 0 --nostringval-- %repeat_continue --nostringval--
> Dictionary stack:
>--dict:1186/1684(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:108/200(L)--
> Current allocation mode is local
> Last OS error: No such file or directory
> Current file position is 131424
> GPL Ghostscript 9.15: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
>
> ```
>
> Then, I've found problems of f22test.ps.
> Broken f22test.ps sets font size to zero.
> Using the patch file for f22test.ps that is attached to this mail,
> ps2pdf14 is succeed.
>
> If I understand correctly, LilyPond gets the font size from pango.
> www.lilypond.org version LilyPond bundles pango that has no problem,
> and always uses it.
>
> Fedora 22's packaged LilyPond uses fedora 22's packaged pango?
>
> ___
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> bug-lilypond@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>
> Yes, it does. I'll add the above to the bug report and reassign to pango.
Thanks!
--
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: lilypond 2.19.20 on fedora gs bug
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Martin Tarenskeen
wrote:
> so why is it not failing with Fedora 21? Fedora 21 and 22 use the same
> Pango version?
>
> MT
>
> On 29 mei 2015 2:05:16 PM Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Masamichi HOSODA <
>> truer...@sea.plala.or.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> > The Fedora 22 package fails for everyone, the www.lilypond.org version
>>> > works.
>>> >
>>> > I tried this minimal example:
>>> >
>>> > % f22test.ly
>>> > \version "2.19.21"
>>> > {c'}
>>> >
>>> > And then did
>>> >
>>> > $ lilypond --ps --verbose f22.ly &> f22test1.txt
>>> > $ ps2pdf14 f22test.ps f22test.pdf &> f22test2.txt
>>> >
>>> > results: see attachment.
>>> > f22test1.txt f22test2.txt f22test.ps
>>>
>>> Thank you for your files.
>>>
>>> I suspect an issue of pango package of fedora 22.
>>>
>>> First, I've tried your f22test.ps on my environment with gs-9.15.
>>> It is failed. That is, it is not gs-9.16's issue.
>>> The result is following.
>>>
>>> ```
>>> $ ps2pdf14 f22test.ps f22test.pdf
>>> Error: /undefinedresult in --glyphshow--
>>> Operand stack:
>>>0.6146 5.6906 -2.8453 space
>>> Execution stack:
>>>%interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval--
>>> --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval--
>>> --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1967 1 3 %oparray_pop
>>> 1966 1 3 %oparray_pop 1950 1 3 %oparray_pop 1836 1 3
>>> %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2
>>> --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push
>>> --nostringval-- 0 --nostringval-- %repeat_continue --nostringval--
>>> Dictionary stack:
>>>--dict:1186/1684(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:108/200(L)--
>>> Current allocation mode is local
>>> Last OS error: No such file or directory
>>> Current file position is 131424
>>> GPL Ghostscript 9.15: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
>>>
>>> ```
>>>
>>> Then, I've found problems of f22test.ps.
>>> Broken f22test.ps sets font size to zero.
>>> Using the patch file for f22test.ps that is attached to this mail,
>>> ps2pdf14 is succeed.
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly, LilyPond gets the font size from pango.
>>> www.lilypond.org version LilyPond bundles pango that has no problem,
>>> and always uses it.
>>>
>>> Fedora 22's packaged LilyPond uses fedora 22's packaged pango?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> bug-lilypond mailing list
>>> bug-lilypond@gnu.org
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>>>
>>> Yes, it does. I'll add the above to the bug report and reassign to
>> pango.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
>>
>> in your fear, seek only peace
>> in your fear, seek only love
>>
>> -d. bowie
>>
>
Interesting. They do use the same pango version, only the ghostscript
version differs.
--
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Source compilation errors with c++14/GCC6
Lilypond 2.19.36/7 fails to build with GCC6 using the c++14 std, which is
the new default for GCC6, as present in Fedora 24+. Attached is a patch
allowing Lilpond 2.19.37 to build. Please review and adopt if applicable.
If there are better corrections than what I've done here, please let me
know and I'll update our patch, at least until a future release builds
unpatched.
Thanks!
-j
--
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
--- lily/include/smobs.hh~ 2016-01-31 11:20:44.0 -0500
+++ lily/include/smobs.hh 2016-02-25 14:25:29.177103937 -0500
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@
// code maintenance while being harder to understand and quite
// trickier in its failure symptoms when things go wrong. So we
// just use a static zero as "not here" indication.
- static const int type_p_name_ = 0;
+ static const int type_p_name_ = NULL;
// LY_DECLARE_SMOB_PROC is used in the Super class definition for
// making a smob callable like a function. Its first argument is a
--- lily/include/smobs.tcc~ 2016-02-28 08:16:42.0 -0500
+++ lily/include/smobs.tcc 2016-03-02 10:00:49.974357146 -0500
@@ -140,8 +140,8 @@
scm_set_smob_equalp (smob_tag_, Super::equal_p);
if (Super::type_p_name_ != 0)
{
- SCM subr = scm_c_define_gsubr (Super::type_p_name_, 1, 0, 0,
- (scm_t_subr) smob_p);
+ SCM subr = scm_c_define_gsubr (reinterpret_cast(Super::type_p_name_), 1, 0, 0,
+ (scm_t_subr) smob_p);
string fundoc = string("Is @var{x} a @code{") + smob_name_
+ "} object?";
ly_add_function_documentation (subr, Super::type_p_name_, "(SCM x)",
--- lily/include/smobs.tcc~ 2016-03-02 10:42:12.0 -0500
+++ lily/include/smobs.tcc 2016-03-02 10:45:43.726749445 -0500
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
(scm_t_subr) smob_p);
string fundoc = string("Is @var{x} a @code{") + smob_name_
+ "} object?";
- ly_add_function_documentation (subr, Super::type_p_name_, "(SCM x)",
+ ly_add_function_documentation (subr, reinterpret_cast(Super::type_p_name_), "(SCM x)",
fundoc);
scm_c_export (Super::type_p_name_, NULL);
}
--- lily/include/smobs.tcc~ 2016-03-02 10:54:04.0 -0500
+++ lily/include/smobs.tcc 2016-03-02 10:56:54.694957092 -0500
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@
+ "} object?";
ly_add_function_documentation (subr, reinterpret_cast(Super::type_p_name_), "(SCM x)",
fundoc);
- scm_c_export (Super::type_p_name_, NULL);
+ scm_c_export (reinterpret_cast(Super::type_p_name_), NULL);
}
ly_add_type_predicate ((void *) is_smob, smob_name_.c_str ());
Super::smob_proc_init (smob_tag_);
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Source compilation errors with c++14/GCC6
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Jon Ciesla writes: > > > Lilypond 2.19.36/7 fails to build with GCC6 using the c++14 std, which is > > the new default for GCC6, as present in Fedora 24+. Attached is a patch > > allowing Lilpond 2.19.37 to build. Please review and adopt if > applicable. > > If there are better corrections than what I've done here, please let me > > know and I'll update our patch, at least until a future release builds > > unpatched. > > The proposed changes are pretty much unilaterally horrible. > >// code maintenance while being harder to understand and quite >// trickier in its failure symptoms when things go wrong. So we >// just use a static zero as "not here" indication. > - static const int type_p_name_ = 0; > + static const int type_p_name_ = NULL; > > Why would a const int be set to NULL, a pointer constant? > > And since that apparently doesn't even work, you afterwards apply > reinterpret_casts (pretty much the worst kind of cast) on everything. > > What kind of error message are you getting for the original code? > > -- > David Kastrup > > ___ > bug-lilypond mailing list > bug-lilypond@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond > Original error messages here, i build.log: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307746 This is an additional reference: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html Alternative suggestions are more than welcome. -j -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: segfault in 2.19.45
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Kevin Barry wrote: > Thank you for taking the time to test it. I'm using the package in > Fedora's repo, so I suppose I should take it up with them? I'm not > sure how to troubleshoot further. Reinstalling didn't help. > > Kevin > > ___ > bug-lilypond mailing list > bug-lilypond@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond > Hi, Fedora lilypond maintainer. We've actually got our 2.19.45 patched, but the update was superceded by 2.19.46. If you do sudo dnf update lilypond* --enablerepo=updates-testing you should get it. -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
