| Summary: | media-sound/lilypond-2.14.2 version bump | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Tim Harder <radhermit> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Panagiotis Christopoulos (RETIRED) <pchrist> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | ainsaar, creffett, fonts, hkbst, hsggebhardt, jarauh, keshav.kini, korionis, Martin.vGagern, ps, scheme, stroller, tl, Warp_7, wojciech |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | 367425 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
| Attachments: |
media-sound/lilypond/lilypond-2.13.51.ebuild
Current stable Lilypond ebuild media-sound/lilypond-2.14.2 |
||
|
Description
Tim Harder
2010-08-27 16:26:23 UTC
Created attachment 264339 [details]
media-sound/lilypond/lilypond-2.13.51.ebuild
ebuild, wfm
This ebuild is based on the one in tree. Dependencies are revised according to README and patches corrected.
In $FILESDIR you should put lilypond-2.12.3-qa_pyc_fix.patch renamed to lilypond-2.13.51-qa_pyc_fix.patch and 50lilypond-gentoo.el .
i can only build lilypond with an older version of zlib (zlib-1.2.3-r1). with the newer zlib, compilation fails at certain point with this message: /usr/lib64/libz.so: invalid ELF header Could not find the zlib library which is needed to understand WOFF are you building lilypond successfully with zlib-1.2.5-r2? (In reply to comment #2) > i can only build lilypond with an older version of zlib (zlib-1.2.3-r1). > > with the newer zlib, compilation fails at certain point with this message: > > /usr/lib64/libz.so: invalid ELF header > Could not find the zlib library which is needed to understand WOFF > > are you building lilypond successfully with zlib-1.2.5-r2? This seems to be a zlib problem. See output of "file /usr/lib64/libz.so*" For me it works after the following steps (as root; remove "64" when on a 32bit system): mv /usr/lib64/libz.so /usr/lib64/libz.so.orig ln -s /lib64/libz.so /usr/lib64/libz.so (In reply to comment #3) > For me it works after the following steps (as root; remove "64" when on a 32bit > system): > > mv /usr/lib64/libz.so /usr/lib64/libz.so.orig > ln -s /lib64/libz.so /usr/lib64/libz.so thank you, yes, this works (modifying the link to /lib64/libz.so.1). weird... BTW, i tried to apply the same ebuild to more recent versions of lilypond (2.13.54 and 2.13.60) and both failed thus: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/lilypond-2.13.60/work/lilypond-2.13.60/stepmake/bin/install.py", line 78, in <module> shutil.copy2 (f, dest) File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/shutil.py", line 127, in copy2 copyfile(src, dst) File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/shutil.py", line 81, in copyfile with open(src, 'rb') as fsrc: IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: './out/CenturySchL-Ital.otf' any ideas? (In reply to comment #4) > IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: './out/CenturySchL-Ital.otf' i found the problem: i was using an older ebuild pointing to the wrong directory for century schoolbook fonts... sorry, this new ebuild works, thank you. This /usr/lib64/libz.so issue seems to be #290974, a WONTFIX, so if this still a problem, lilypond should be fixed. The file itself (as a linker script) refers to #4411, FIXED long ago. There is now a more recent stable release for Lilypond. According to http://lilypond.org/development.html There are two sets of releases for LilyPond: stable releases, and unstable development releases. Stable versions have an even-numbered ‘minor’ version number (e.g., 2.8, 2.10, 2.12). Development versions have an odd-numbered ‘minor’ version number (e.g., 2.7, 2.9, 2.11). A 2.14.1 release of Lilypond dated less than 2 weeks ago is available at http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/sources/v2.14/ Therefore ISTM that this bug should be closed in favour of bug 370273 (although due to the zlib / linker script problem mentioned in comments #2, #3 & #6 this seems not to be quite as simple as merely "bumping"). Guys, I will take care of this after I finish the semester (I have exams now), unless another dev steps up and help. I may need you as testers (my sound card is dead) so stay around. (In reply to comment #8) > Guys, I will take care of this after I finish the semester (I have exams now), > unless another dev steps up and help. I was thinking of trying to get this done in a few days, but if I don't please take care of things. > I may need you as testers (my sound card is dead) so stay around. You do know that lilypond is used for producing sheet music, right? Therefore you probably won't need a sound card for testing unless you want to "test" some example sheet music on a keyboard hooked up to your computer. :) (In reply to comment #9) > You do know that lilypond is used for producing sheet music, right? Therefore > you probably won't need a sound card for testing unless you want to "test" some > example sheet music on a keyboard hooked up to your computer. :) You're probably right, I don't remember why, but I had a feeling that it does both. *** Bug 370273 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** In 2.14.2 docs, there is: --- * FontForge (http://fontforge.sf.net/) (20060125 or newer; 20100501 or newer is recommended; must be compiled with `--enable-double'. Failure to do so can lead to poor intersection calculations and poorly-rendered glyphs.) --- I've checked, and current fontforge ebuilds come with "--enable-double" disabled. Of the people who 've been compiling lilypond manually, does anyone know/can tell if we actually need this enabled or not? (In reply to comment #12) > … Of the people who 've been compiling lilypond manually, does anyone > know/can tell if we actually need this enabled or not? I've been using the fontforge-20110222.ebuild from the main tree, patched only with Siim's patch from bug #367425. So I guess "--enable-double" is disabled. I haven't seen any problems with this, but I'm using only lilypond 2.14.1 Fonts herd, could you comment on the following (Comment 12), please: > In 2.14.2 docs, there is: > > --- > > * FontForge (http://fontforge.sf.net/) (20060125 or newer; 20100501 > or newer is recommended; must be compiled with `--enable-double'. > Failure to do so can lead to poor intersection calculations and > poorly-rendered glyphs.) > > --- > > I've checked, and current fontforge ebuilds come with "--enable-double" > disabled. Of the people who 've been compiling lilypond manually, does anyone > know/can tell if we actually need this enabled or not? I followed the instructions by Joe Stroller from comment 13 and after rebuilding fontforge I was able to emerge lilypond-2.14.2 successfully. CC-ing fontforge maintainer to get some feedback. *** Bug 399197 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Created attachment 300549 [details]
Current stable Lilypond ebuild
Minus patches. Builds fine for me, but needs testing.
Note that >=media-sound/lilypond-2.14.0 is released under the GNU GPL v3+ license. Thanks for writing this ebuild! (In reply to comment #19) > Note that >=media-sound/lilypond-2.14.0 is released under the GNU GPL v3+ > license. Thanks for writing this ebuild! Sorry, I forgot to check that! Thanks for the correction. Created attachment 300565 [details]
media-sound/lilypond-2.14.2
Corrected (I hope), but probably needs more.
Er, I meant the software, not the ebuild. You need to change the LICENSE variable to "GPL-3" instead of "GPL-2". This means, as I understand it, that the user who installs lilypond using the ebuild is contracting with the rights owners of lilypond to obtain the source code under the GPL v3, though they have the option to obtain it under any GPL version greater than or equal to 3. In other words, "v3+" means that in the future if GPL 4 is invented, we could set LICENSE to "GPL-4" if we so desired. As for the ebuild itself, the Gentoo ebuild how-to page says that the header in an ebuild should be exactly the same as what's in /usr/portage/header.txt, so you shouldn't change that v2 to v3. You also shouldn't delete the line "# $Header: $" under that, apparently, but I guess this is not super important until the ebuild actually goes into the portage tree. (In reply to comment #22) > Er, I meant the software, not the ebuild. You need to change the LICENSE > variable to "GPL-3" instead of "GPL-2". This means, as I understand it, that > the user who installs lilypond using the ebuild is contracting with the rights > owners of lilypond to obtain the source code under the GPL v3, though they have > the option to obtain it under any GPL version greater than or equal to 3. In > other words, "v3+" means that in the future if GPL 4 is invented, we could set > LICENSE to "GPL-4" if we so desired. > > As for the ebuild itself, the Gentoo ebuild how-to page says that the header in > an ebuild should be exactly the same as what's in /usr/portage/header.txt, so > you shouldn't change that v2 to v3. You also shouldn't delete the line "# > $Header: $" under that, apparently, but I guess this is not super important > until the ebuild actually goes into the portage tree. Well I clearly wasn't paying attention yesterday. Should I upload yet another file, of just leave the corrections to anyone testing? I hate to litter the thread with attachments. Yesterday I read on the Lilypond mailing list that 2.16 is to come out soon. May I thus be so daring and ask for an inclusion of 2.14 in the near future, please? Even if it's keyworded and 2.12 remains the stable version for the time being. Many problems I nowadays have are answered in the ML with "many things in xyz have changed and been improved since 2.12, try it with 2.14". Of course I appreciate your effort. FWIW, I downloaded the sources for 2.14.2 manually, the build ran through and compiles one of my 2.12 scores. I have latest stable versions of zlib, fontforge and texlive installed without any manual patching. 2.14.2 added to CVS currently with doc generation disabled since it requires a more recent version of texi2html than currently in the tree. |