Fw: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[Trevor]

Forwarding on behalf of Jean Abou Samra as I deleted the message in 
SourceForge by mistake :( I don't know what the original subject line 
was, and the attachment is lost. Sorry! Perhaps Jean could resubmit.


Trevor

-- Forwarded Message --
From: "Jean Abou Samra" 
To: nore...@sourceforge.net
Sent: 14/07/2019 20:23:46
Subject: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

The following submission requires approval at 
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/_discuss/moderate before it can 
be approved for posting:'t

Also reported on Mac OS (at least 10.12.6 Sierra [me] and 10.13.6 High Sierra 
[Michael Hendry]) with LilyPond 2.21.0, but _not_  LilyPond 2.19.83, quite 
surprisingly as the bug appeared with 2.19.19 on Windows. Both above examples 
are reproduced, and I can add a third one:
```
\version "2.21.0"
\relative {
c'1
\acciaccatura { bes8 } c1
}
```
Full outputs and logs on the three examples using 2.21.0, 2.19.83 and 2.18.2 
are available in the attached archive.
Two additional remarks:
* On the first example, "mis-predicted force" programming errors show up, and 
yet the output is perfectly normal, the staff doesn't protrude.
* On the last example, the bug is triggered as soon as the grace note is 
altered, no matter the alteration and no matter wether \acciaccatura or \grace 
is used.
Hope that helps!



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[James Lowe]

Hello

On Sat, 12 May 2018 09:24:17 +0200, David Kastrup  wrote:

> "James Lowe"  writes:
> 
> > Dev team,
> >
> > Don tacked a patch on the end of an already-fixed issue.
> >
> > https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5243
> >
> > I assume this needs a new issue?
> 
> Basically yes, and definitely with an explanation of why the committed
> fix is not considered sufficient.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup

I created https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5334/

Sorry this took so long to do.

The patch has been attached to that issue and rebased.

James



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[Knut Petersen]

I don't think we should update a release last issued 5 years ago - so no 2.18.3.

It also seems that a security problem with no reported problems actually 
happening in 5 years can be so serious to warrant rushing out a new release?


The problem is known, it is published how to exploit the problem, and it is 
really easy to write an exploit.
I really think the problem is severe enough to justify a lilypond 2.18.3 
release.

stable/2.18 does not build on my openSuSE Tumbleweed system without a few 
patches, see issues #4814 and #4965.
Even with those patches make doc fails, but an easy fix is to default 
gs_load_fonts to true:

   diff --git a/scm/lily.scm b/scm/lily.scm
   index 9b0a6d2aad..5f565d8c07 100644
   --- a/scm/lily.scm
   +++ b/scm/lily.scm
   @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ regression testing.")
  "Pad left edge of the output EPS bounding box by
 given amount (in mm).")
 (gs-load-fonts
   - #f
   + #t
  "Load fonts via Ghostscript.")
 (gs-load-lily-fonts
  #f



Knut
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>

To: "Knut Petersen" <knut_peter...@t-online.de>
Cc: "dondelelcaro" <dondelelc...@users.sourceforge.net>; "lilypond-devel" 
<lilypond-devel@gnu.org>

Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required



Knut Petersen <knut_peter...@t-online.de> writes:


Am 12.05.2018 um 09:16 schrieb James Lowe:

Dev team,

Don tacked a patch on the end of an already-fixed issue.


James, they try to fix lilypond 2.18, not 2.20 or master.

2.18 is still insecure.


At this point of time we probably really need to decide to release 2.20,
come hell and high water, including its current faults.

Or pitch out 2.18.3.  At the very least it might make sense to add
purely compilation fixes (for keeping up with more current versions of
compilers etc) to the current stable branch in future even if one does
no proper release.  Possibly even security fixes.  That way there is
some semi-official way of dealing with bit rot.  Also makes it easier to
do regression testing 5 years later.

--
David Kastrup


I don't think we should update a release last issued 5 years ago - so no 
2.18.3.


It also seems that a security problem with no reported problems actually 
happening in 5 years can be so serious to warrant rushing out a new release?


--
Phil Holmes 



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re[2]: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[Trevor]

David Kastrup wrote 12/05/2018 11:27:40


James, they try to fix lilypond 2.18, not 2.20 or master.

2.18 is still insecure.


At this point of time we probably really need to decide to release 
2.20,

come hell and high water, including its current faults.

Or pitch out 2.18.3.  At the very least it might make sense to add
purely compilation fixes (for keeping up with more current versions of
compilers etc) to the current stable branch in future even if one does
no proper release.  Possibly even security fixes.  That way there is
some semi-official way of dealing with bit rot.  Also makes it easier 
to

do regression testing 5 years later.


"decide to release 2.20"? Yes. Better still: "And" rather than "Or".

If details of the regressions in 2.20.0 are provided alongside the 
improvements

folk can decide which of 2.18.3 and 2.20.0 suits them best.

Trevor


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[David Kastrup]

Knut Petersen  writes:

> Am 12.05.2018 um 09:16 schrieb James Lowe:
>> Dev team,
>>
>> Don tacked a patch on the end of an already-fixed issue.
>
> James, they try to fix lilypond 2.18, not 2.20 or master.
>
> 2.18 is still insecure.

At this point of time we probably really need to decide to release 2.20,
come hell and high water, including its current faults.

Or pitch out 2.18.3.  At the very least it might make sense to add
purely compilation fixes (for keeping up with more current versions of
compilers etc) to the current stable branch in future even if one does
no proper release.  Possibly even security fixes.  That way there is
some semi-official way of dealing with bit rot.  Also makes it easier to
do regression testing 5 years later.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[Knut Petersen]

Am 12.05.2018 um 09:16 schrieb James Lowe:

Dev team,

Don tacked a patch on the end of an already-fixed issue.


James, they try to fix lilypond 2.18, not 2.20 or master.

2.18 is still insecure.

Knut

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[James Lowe]

Don,

On Sat, 12 May 2018 09:24:17 +0200, David Kastrup  wrote:

> "James Lowe"  writes:
> 
> > Dev team,
> >
> > Don tacked a patch on the end of an already-fixed issue.
> >
> > https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5243
> >
> > I assume this needs a new issue?
> 
> Basically yes, and definitely with an explanation of why the committed
> fix is not considered sufficient.
> 

If you can add some meat to your comment, I can create a new ticket for your 
proposed patch.

James
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[David Kastrup]

"James Lowe"  writes:

> Dev team,
>
> Don tacked a patch on the end of an already-fixed issue.
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5243
>
> I assume this needs a new issue?

Basically yes, and definitely with an explanation of why the committed
fix is not considered sufficient.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [testlilyissues:issues] Moderation action required

[James Lowe]

Dev team,

Don tacked a patch on the end of an already-fixed issue.

https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5243

I assume this needs a new issue?

Let me know.

James

On Fri, 11 May 2018 16:52:11 -, "Don Armstrong" 
 wrote:

> The following submission requires approval at 
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/_discuss/moderate before it 
> can be approved for posting:
> 
> I have just uploaded a fix to Debian which switches to using `system*` 
> instead of `system`:
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lilypond/commit/788b56e4b7f62637481af65b4b2929649c30fe78
> 
> Not sure if this is cross-platform enough, but it solves the issue for 
> systems with a working system* call.
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit 
> 



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel