On Nov 1, 2019, at 02:52, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>>> [...] because the `share' tree present in
>>>
>>> gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.19.83-1/
>>>
>>> is not created by the script in
>>>
>>> gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1/
>>
>> This fixes the lilypond-test stage:
>> [...] because the `share' tree present in
>>
>> gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.19.83-1/
>>
>> is not created by the script in
>>
>> gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1/
>
> This fixes the lilypond-test stage:
> https://github.com/gperciva/gub/pull/70
Thanks a lot! What
On Oct 28, 2019, at 05:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> Operand stack:
>
> (.../gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf/emmentaler-20.otf)
>(r)
> Execution stack: [...]
> Last OS error: No such file or directory
>
> because the `share' tree present in
On Oct 28, 2019, at 05:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> Operand stack:
>
> (.../gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf/emmentaler-20.otf)
>(r)
> Execution stack: [...]
> Last OS error: No such file or directory
>
> because the `share' tree
> I installed Ubuntu 19.10 on a spare computer, installed some
> necessary packages, cloned https://github.com/gperciva/gub.git, and
> ran "time make -j7 PLATFORMS=‘linux-64’ lilypond". This got as far
> as package linux-64::lilypond, stage pkg_install, and then exited
> with error 2. The last
On Oct 28, 2019, at 05:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> A good test for those things IMHO is to clone the gub repository, then
> saying
>
> make lilypond
I installed Ubuntu 19.10 on a spare computer, installed some necessary
packages, cloned https://github.com/gperciva/gub.git, and ran "time make
Dan Eble writes:
> On Oct 28, 2019, at 08:12, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> I request some help to understand how I can improve my pre-commit
>>> testing procedures, and where my responsibilities begin and end.
>>
>> Responsibilities don't end.
>
> Fine. When a patch is submitted for review,
> I will attempt to build gub to reproduce and diagnose this issue.
Thanks!
> If you think my time would be better spent preparing a patch that
> cleanly undoes the 'share' change, I'm open to hearing it.
I second Carl's opinion, namely to fix the issue rather than to
circumvent the problem.
On Oct 28, 2019, at 08:12, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I request some help to understand how I can improve my pre-commit
>> testing procedures, and where my responsibilities begin and end.
>
> Responsibilities don't end.
Fine. When a patch is submitted for review, there ends the opportunity to
On 10/28/19, 7:53 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Dan Eble"
wrote:
On Oct 28, 2019, at 05:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Last OS error: No such file or directory
>
> because the `share' tree present in
>
> gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.19.83-1/
>
On Oct 28, 2019, at 05:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Last OS error: No such file or directory
>
> because the `share' tree present in
>
> gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.19.83-1/
>
> is not created by the script in
>
> gub/uploads/webtest/v2.21.0-1-unpack/v2.21.0-1/
>
> I seem to
Dan Eble writes:
> On Oct 27, 2019, at 14:06, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> I have no idea why the problem is only being discussed instead of
>>> fixed, but I'll revert
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, inaction was mainly due
> to expecting affirmation from a more senior
Dan Eble writes:
> In the past month, I've devoted many hours to testing my submissions,
> but clearly the effort is not achieving the goal.
If the goal is perfection, it is hard to achieve.
> I request some help to understand how I can improve my pre-commit
> testing procedures, and where my
> In the past month, I've devoted many hours to testing my
> submissions, but clearly the effort is not achieving the goal.
Don't worry. Some of the problems are very hard to catch and only
show up under certain circumstances.
> I request some help to understand how I can improve my pre-commit
In the past month, I've devoted many hours to testing my submissions, but
clearly the effort is not achieving the goal. I request some help to
understand how I can improve my pre-commit testing procedures, and where my
responsibilities begin and end. I enjoy having my commits reverted as much
>> I still cannot do make-check this morning based on current master.
>
> I have no idea why the problem is only being discussed instead of
> fixed, but I'll revert
>
> commit 911788f173eb58438fc9c850a005638d053b8bba
> Author: Dan Eble
> Date: Thu Oct 17 18:17:44 2019 -0400
>
> Issue
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> I still cannot do make-check this morning based on current master.
>>
>> I have no idea why the problem is only being discussed instead of
>> fixed, but I'll revert
>>
>> commit 911788f173eb58438fc9c850a005638d053b8bba
>> Author: Dan Eble
>> Date: Thu Oct 17
James writes:
> On 26/10/2019 09:37, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
>>
>> I already debugged this, and assuming you don't have tidy installed (I
>> don't have either), please apply
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5586/ first.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jonas
>
> Sorry, I don't care.
>
> I still
On 26/10/2019 09:37, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
I already debugged this, and assuming you don't have tidy installed (I
don't have either), please apply
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5586/ first.
Regards,
Jonas
Sorry, I don't care.
I still cannot do make-check this morning based
Am Samstag, den 26.10.2019, 08:43 +0100 schrieb James:
> 1. ./autogen --noconfigure
>
> 2. mkdir build
>
> 3. cd build
>
> 4 ../configure --disable-optimising
>
> 5. make -j7 CPU_COUNT=7
>
> 6. make -j7 CPU_COUNT=7 test-baseline
>
> 7. make -j7 CPU_COUNT=7 check
>
> 8.
>
> ...
>
> no
1. ./autogen --noconfigure
2. mkdir build
3. cd build
4 ../configure --disable-optimising
5. make -j7 CPU_COUNT=7
6. make -j7 CPU_COUNT=7 test-baseline
7. make -j7 CPU_COUNT=7 check
8.
...
no source for input/regression/midi/out-test/dynamic-initial-1.midi
no source for
21 matches
Mail list logo
