Re: Lilypond documentation (info+man) installation?

Hi; Thanks for your responses, Richard and Werner. I went ahead and downloaded the Documentation package from the Lilypond website for vesion 2.24.3, unpacked it and updated my MANPAGE and INFOPAGE environment variables and now I have access tothe Lilypond man pages and info pages. Thanks

Re: Lilypond documentation (info+man) installation?

have access in the near future unfortunately). What might be the reason of this failure? I've never seen this message before. >> 2. Actually generate the documentation? Only non-image info pages and man pages are generated and installed by `+docs`; support for creating the remaining documentation fi

Re: Lilypond documentation (info+man) installation?

t; On Apr 19, 2024, at 23:41, Kenneth Wolcott wrote: > > Hi; > > I've been using Lilypond via MacPorts for some while now. > > I've been using Lilypond documentation from the Lilypond website in > html form (sometimes from pdf). > > What I don't have is the docum

Lilypond documentation (info+man) installation?

Hi; I've been using Lilypond via MacPorts for some while now. I've been using Lilypond documentation from the Lilypond website in html form (sometimes from pdf). What I don't have is the documentation from MacPorts Lilypond in the info and/or man format. man lilypond No manual entry

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 21:09, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > If there was a port-level view of how the buildbots are doing (maybe there is > and I haven't found it?) that might come close. There is no such feature at this time. > But from what little I figured out looking at the buildbot pages,

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 21:32, Ken Cunningham wrote: > On 2020-12-04 6:56 p.m., Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> The reason for this is that ports.macports.org only shows status for ports >> that were built directly. It does not show status for ports that were built >> indirectly > > > Hah! We should

Re: info

On 2020-12-04 6:56 p.m., Ryan Schmidt wrote: The reason for this is that ports.macports.org only shows status for ports that were built directly. It does not show status for ports that were built indirectly Hah! We should certainly prioritize that deficiency for fixing... I had no idea

Re: info

If there was a port-level view of how the buildbots are doing (maybe there is and I haven't found it?) that might come close. But from what little I figured out looking at the buildbot pages, it looks like something is failing in an early dependency for arm64. I do not have any arm64 (Apple

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 16:00, James Secan wrote: > I think a large number of us are very interested in the status of ports > vis-a-vis both Apple Silicon (M1) and Big Sur. Some sort of simple > red-yellow-green status board for ports that have been checked would be very > useful. Unfortunately

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 15:50, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > You should be able to install MacPorts and many ports. But you should > not be surprised if you hit some that will refuse to build and you may > need to wait for upstream to fix the issue (or try to fix it yourself > and submit a patch or

Re: info

On Dec 4, 2020, at 09:18, Alejandro Imass wrote: > quick question: is Apple using more or less the same stack and toolchain i.e. > Mach + FBSD backbone and LLVM, etc. ? or has something very important changed > for Apple silicon? The very important thing that has changed is that Apple

Re: info

> Some sort of simple red-yellow-green status board for ports that have been > checked would be very useful. You are in luck! Go here and enter your favourite port. eg: by the way, a “grey” box means untested as

Re: info

I think a large number of us are very interested in the status of ports vis-a-vis both Apple Silicon (M1) and Big Sur. Some sort of simple red-yellow-green status board for ports that have been checked would be very useful. Verified support for the MacPorts codes I use regularly is a major

Re: info

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 16:27, Giovanni Cantele wrote: > > Dear All,. > > I’m searching the web but I cannot find any response to the following > question: > > is there any ongoing project for porting the whole macports staff on the new > Apple silicon architecture? There is no "special ongoing

Re: info

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 11:01 AM Artem Loenko via macports-users < macports-users@lists.macports.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I am in the same boat (and have switched from HomeBrew to MacPorts a few > weeks ago, so, maybe I am wrong). > > MacPorts as a tool works just fine on Macs with Apple Silicon,

Re: MacPorts on Apple Silicon Macs (was: Re: info)

On Nov 28, 2020, at 08:32, Joshua Root wrote: > Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> We have tens of thousands of ports in MacPorts and it's not always clear to >> us which ones people use. > > That at least can be easily remedied by installing the mpstats port. You > should still file a ticket if

Re: MacPorts on Apple Silicon Macs (was: Re: info)

Ryan Schmidt wrote: > We have tens of thousands of ports in MacPorts and it's not always clear to > us which ones people use. That at least can be easily remedied by installing the mpstats port. You should still file a ticket if something is broken (and there isn't an existing ticket) of course.

Re: MacPorts on Apple Silicon Macs (was: Re: info)

On Nov 27, 2020, at 09:15, Giovanni Cantele wrote: > is there any ongoing project for porting the whole macports staff on the new > Apple silicon architecture? > What happens to those who extensively make use of macports and have bought > the recent released MacBook Pro running on the new

Re: info

Hello, I am in the same boat (and have switched from HomeBrew to MacPorts a few weeks ago, so, maybe I am wrong). MacPorts as a tool works just fine on Macs with Apple Silicon, but many ports are “broken” and have to be fixed. Most of them just do not compile for `arm64`, and it is not

Re: info

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 10:27 AM Giovanni Cantele wrote: > > Dear All,. > > I’m searching the web but I cannot find any response to the following > question: > > is there any ongoing project for porting the whole macports staff on the new > Apple silicon architecture? > What happens to those

info

Dear All,. I’m searching the web but I cannot find any response to the following question: is there any ongoing project for porting the whole macports staff on the new Apple silicon architecture? What happens to those who extensively make use of macports and have bought the recent released

Re: /opt/local/share/info/dir

Pieter van Oostrum writes: > I noticed that on my computer /opt/local/share/info/dir hasn't been > updated for a couple of months although I installed several ports with > info files. My /opt/local/share/info/dir has dat Nove. 7, and several > *.info files in /opt/loca

/opt/local/share/info/dir

I noticed that on my computer /opt/local/share/info/dir hasn't been updated for a couple of months although I installed several ports with info files. My /opt/local/share/info/dir has dat Nove. 7, and several *.info files in /opt/local/share/info/ are not in the dir file. Even some files older

Re: package version and variant info in `main.log`

I've noticed that in `main.log` files there is no information what version and variants have been requested – for example, ImageMagick @6.9.9-40_7+x11 Wouldn't it make sense to make `port` add this information to the very top of `main.log`? This would also

Re: package version and variant info in `main.log`

>> I've noticed that in `main.log` files there is no information what >> version and variants have been requested – for example, >> >> ImageMagick @6.9.9-40_7+x11 >> >> Wouldn't it make sense to make `port` add this information to the >> very top of `main.log`? This would also help identify

Re: package version and variant info in `main.log`

> On Nov 8, 2019, at 02:39, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >>> I've noticed that in `main.log` files there is no information what >>> version and variants have been requested – for example, >>> >>> ImageMagick @6.9.9-40_7+x11 >>> >>> Wouldn't it make sense to make `port` add this information to the

package version and variant info in `main.log`

I've noticed that in `main.log` files there is no information what version and variants have been requested – for example, ImageMagick @6.9.9-40_7+x11 Wouldn't it make sense to make `port` add this information to the very top of `main.log`? This would also help identify various `make.log`