Re: lilypond-book: Output would overwrite input file error
Thanks René! That does the trick. Should have thought of it myself :).
Jon
René Brandenburger wrote:
Hi,
I had the same problem already when moving from 2.10.xx to 2.11.43. I
solved the problem by renaming all .tex files to .lytex and replacing
the \input(foobar.tex) by \input(foobar.lytex)
Hope this helps
best regards
rene
Am Dienstag, den 04.11.2008, 13:48 -0600 schrieb Jonathan Kulp:
Hi All,
I'm getting to know lilypond-book, both with html and LaTeX source
files, running running Ubuntu 8.04 with 2.11.63.
As suggested in the manual, I've specifed an output directory (
--output=out). So let's say my source file is
~/Book/filename.lytex
and my output directory is
~/Book/out/
I also have a couple of other \input{foobar.tex} files and am trying to
include lily source files with \lilypondfile{foobar.ly}, stuff like that.
What I've found is that the first invocation of lilypond-book on the
source file works fine, but the next time I run it after making
changes to the sourcefile, it won't compile. It took me a while to find
the problem in the massive amounts of terminal output, but the culprit
is apparently this one:
lilypond-book: error: Output would overwrite input file; use --output.
What I've deduced from this is that lilypond-book must first make a copy
of my source file and put it in the output directory, then use that as
the input file. Is this correct? Because when I remove the .tex files
from the output directory and run lilypond-book on the original
filename.lytex (in the main directory), it compiles correctly and
creates the desired output. My question is this: shouldn't the input
file really be the one that's NOT in the output directory? In other
words, why doesn't lilypond-book take the command-line argument as the
input file instead of the file that it has put in the output directory?
Is there a command-line option (such as the -e flag for convert-ly) that
would allow overwriting the files?
I've made a workaround by adding cleanup lines to my lilybook
script to remove .tex files from the output directory, but it seems to
me that the program should use the argument of the lilypond-book command
as the input file and then overwrite the files inside the output
directory instead of returning errors saying that output would overwrite
the input file.
I don't remember this happening when using lilypond-book on the .itely
files for the GDP. Is it designed this way to avoid deleting files
inadvertently?
Best,
Jon
--
Jonathan Kulp
http://www.jonathankulp.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-book: Output would overwrite input file error
Hi,
I had the same problem already when moving from 2.10.xx to 2.11.43. I
solved the problem by renaming all .tex files to .lytex and replacing
the \input(foobar.tex) by \input(foobar.lytex)
Hope this helps
best regards
rene
Am Dienstag, den 04.11.2008, 13:48 -0600 schrieb Jonathan Kulp:
Hi All,
I'm getting to know lilypond-book, both with html and LaTeX source
files, running running Ubuntu 8.04 with 2.11.63.
As suggested in the manual, I've specifed an output directory (
--output=out). So let's say my source file is
~/Book/filename.lytex
and my output directory is
~/Book/out/
I also have a couple of other \input{foobar.tex} files and am trying to
include lily source files with \lilypondfile{foobar.ly}, stuff like that.
What I've found is that the first invocation of lilypond-book on the
source file works fine, but the next time I run it after making
changes to the sourcefile, it won't compile. It took me a while to find
the problem in the massive amounts of terminal output, but the culprit
is apparently this one:
lilypond-book: error: Output would overwrite input file; use --output.
What I've deduced from this is that lilypond-book must first make a copy
of my source file and put it in the output directory, then use that as
the input file. Is this correct? Because when I remove the .tex files
from the output directory and run lilypond-book on the original
filename.lytex (in the main directory), it compiles correctly and
creates the desired output. My question is this: shouldn't the input
file really be the one that's NOT in the output directory? In other
words, why doesn't lilypond-book take the command-line argument as the
input file instead of the file that it has put in the output directory?
Is there a command-line option (such as the -e flag for convert-ly) that
would allow overwriting the files?
I've made a workaround by adding cleanup lines to my lilybook
script to remove .tex files from the output directory, but it seems to
me that the program should use the argument of the lilypond-book command
as the input file and then overwrite the files inside the output
directory instead of returning errors saying that output would overwrite
the input file.
I don't remember this happening when using lilypond-book on the .itely
files for the GDP. Is it designed this way to avoid deleting files
inadvertently?
Best,
Jon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Lilypond-book output
-Original Message- From: Graham Percival [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:26 AM To: Georg Dummer Cc: 'lilypond-user' Subject: Re: Lilypond-book output On 20-Jan-06, at 3:19 AM, Georg Dummer wrote: Thank you. I tried this but it didn't change anything. But maybe I have to play around with this a bit. As a start I think I can live with that. For me the most annoy thing is the fact, that the markups are put on top of the score. Is this a bug? All the markups? Regardless of having \score in between them? Yes, I'd say that is a bug. Please create a small file which demonstrates this, and send it to the bugs list. See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2006-01/msg00136.html Hope, this helps Georg ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond-book output
On 20-Jan-06, at 3:19 AM, Georg Dummer wrote: Thank you. I tried this but it didn't change anything. But maybe I have to play around with this a bit. As a start I think I can live with that. For me the most annoy thing is the fact, that the markups are put on top of the score. Is this a bug? All the markups? Regardless of having \score in between them? Yes, I'd say that is a bug. Please create a small file which demonstrates this, and send it to the bugs list. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Lilypond-book output
-Original Message-
From: Graham Percival [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:05 AM
To: Georg Dummer
Cc: lilypond-user
Subject: Re: Lilypond-book output
On 8-Jan-06, at 8:02 AM, Georg Dummer wrote:
Then I get the whole score with the markup in the correct
order but in
one picture which is only suitable for realy small scores. If I
comment out the \book block the several lines are drawn in
serveral
pictures but all \markups are put in one picture. The same thing
happens if I use the \header instead of the first markup.
Interesting. The \book behavior is what's supposed to happen. Having
\score{ {
{ notes }
\markup{}
\markup{}
}
}
is a relatively new construct. But I agree that is seems that
the two \markup sections should be processed separately
(producing separate .eps files).
Is it possible to put every separate markup, header and line of a
score in different eps-files?
You could probably fake it by inserting an empty, invisible
score in between the \markup fields.
- Graham
Thank you. I tried this but it didn't change anything.
But maybe I have to play around with this a bit.
As a start I think I can live with that. For me the most annoy thing is the
fact, that the markups are put on top of the score. Is this a bug?
Georg
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond-book output
On 8-Jan-06, at 8:02 AM, Georg Dummer wrote:
Then I get the whole score with the markup in the correct order but in
one
picture which is only suitable for realy small scores. If I comment
out the
\book block the several lines are drawn in serveral pictures but all
\markups are put in one picture. The same thing happens if I use the
\header instead of the first markup.
Interesting. The \book behavior is what's supposed to happen. Having
\score{ {
{ notes }
\markup{}
\markup{}
}
}
is a relatively new construct. But I agree that is seems that the two
\markup sections should be processed separately (producing separate
.eps files).
Is it possible to put every separate markup, header and line of a
score in
different eps-files?
You could probably fake it by inserting an empty, invisible score in
between the \markup fields.
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
