Re: Would like to develop

[Juan Lucas Rey]

Relying all this time:

Right but brew is much more popular and would therefore drive more developers 
in (Or advance users) I remember installing macports on a previous mac just for 
this, and I agree it worked. 

I have been reading and reproducing the build process this week (I used docker 
for Mac instead of the other option) and I got to say it's pretty involved and 
wished it was simpler, and I'm saying this as a professional programmer.

I'll have to dig deeper to see if there's anything I can help about that

> On 3 Jan 2021, at 12:06, Jahrme Risner  wrote:
> 

Re: Would like to develop

[Jahrme Risner]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 15:57, Sven Axelsson  wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 at 21:59, Jonas Hahnfeld  wrote:
>
>> Interesting, the brew formula uses the pre-built binaries which are 32-
>> bit only (due to licensing issues, see below):
>> https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/blob/HEAD/Casks/lilypond.rb
>> That's more of a packaging issue in brew, LilyPond should build fine
>> with Clang since a year or so. IMHO the formula should be updated to
>> build from source.
>>
>
> That's the Homebrew Cask formula. Those do not build anything, they just
> install pre-built applications. The Brew formula for lilypond was removed
> some years ago because it needed Guile 1.6 and at that time Homebrew did
> not support multiple versions of the same library. That is no longer a
> problem and in addition, Homebrew now has a buildbot that automatically
> produces binaries for multiple OS and CPU versions (
> https://docs.brew.sh/Bottles). So, it would be a good thing to update the
> Brew formula and get it back into Homebrew.

A while back I had been playing with the idea of getting LilyPond building with 
HomeBrew and what I had at that point is available at 
https://github.com/Jahrme/homebrew-lilypond. In addition to the Guile issue 
already mentioned, last I checked HomeBrew dependencies on anything LaTeX 
related were not well supported. In the end, I’ve moved to using MacPorts 
instead of HomeBrew so I haven’t kept the release current and I’m sure it would 
need some work.

As has been mentioned, MacPorts builds 64-bit binaries (I believe even on the 
new M1 Macs) and is kept pretty much up to date for new LilyPond releases. 
There has been a fair amount of work done to slim down the list of dependencies 
needed, and I still think that with a bit of effort MacPorts could be used to 
produce redistributable .pkg installers of a reasonable size.

Best,
Jahrme

> --
> Sven Axelsson
> ++[>++>+++>++>++
>><-]>.+..>+.>+.<<-.>>+.>.<<.
> +++.>-.<<++.>>.<++.>>>++..>>.<.

Re: Would like to develop

[Sven Axelsson]

On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 at 21:59, Jonas Hahnfeld  wrote:

> Interesting, the brew formula uses the pre-built binaries which are 32-
> bit only (due to licensing issues, see below):
> https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/blob/HEAD/Casks/lilypond.rb
> That's more of a packaging issue in brew, LilyPond should build fine
> with Clang since a year or so. IMHO the formula should be updated to
> build from source.
>

That's the Homebrew Cask formula. Those do not build anything, they just
install pre-built applications. The Brew formula for lilypond was removed
some years ago because it needed Guile 1.6 and at that time Homebrew did
not support multiple versions of the same library. That is no longer a
problem and in addition, Homebrew now has a buildbot that automatically
produces binaries for multiple OS and CPU versions (
https://docs.brew.sh/Bottles). So, it would be a good thing to update the
Brew formula and get it back into Homebrew.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++[>++>+++>++>++
><-]>.+..>+.>+.<<-.>>+.>.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>.<++.>>>++..>>.<.

Re: Would like to develop

[Werner LEMBERG]

  
> Interesting, the brew formula uses the pre-built binaries which are
> 32- bit only (due to licensing issues, see below):
> https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/blob/HEAD/Casks/lilypond.rb
> That's more of a packaging issue in brew, LilyPond should build fine
> with Clang since a year or so. IMHO the formula should be updated to
> build from source.

The Homebrew people might have a look at the MacPorts port, which
builds native 64bit binaries.


Werner

Re: Would like to develop

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Interesting, the brew formula uses the pre-built binaries which are 32-
bit only (due to licensing issues, see below):
https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask/blob/HEAD/Casks/lilypond.rb
That's more of a packaging issue in brew, LilyPond should build fine
with Clang since a year or so. IMHO the formula should be updated to
build from source.

For the pre-built binaries, you could have a look at my ideas in this
repo: https://github.com/hahnjo/lilypond-binaries/ I think I eventually
made it work for macOS, but I don't own a Mac myself so help would be
welcome. I presented the idea earlier this year, see this thread:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2020-03/msg00337.html
Note that this way requires Guile 2.2 (to also get 64-bit binaries for
Windows) which is not yet ready for full production use, I'd say.

Regards
Jonas

Am Donnerstag, dem 31.12.2020 um 19:37 + schrieb Juan Lucas Rey:
> Hi thanks for the swift response on New year's Eve no less.
> 
> I am referring at the problem installing from brew, or even the fact that the 
> instructions for using terminal lily pond should be updated to reflect the 
> fact that zsh is the new default terminal (I think the tutorial assumes bash)
> 
> But mainly the issue would be lilypond not working with brew out of the box
> 
> > On 31 Dec 2020, at 15:51, David Kastrup  wrote:
> > 
> > Han-Wen Nienhuys  writes:
> > 
> > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 4:05 PM Juan Lucas Rey 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hello
> > > > 
> > > > I am currently an Engineer working regularly with C++17 at Bloomberg, 
> > > > and
> > > > would like to be a contributor to lilypond. In particular I would like 
> > > > to
> > > > take as first objective to make it compatible with 64 bit compilation.
> > > > 
> > > > Is this an objective that is desirable by the rest of the team? Was it
> > > > attempted before?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think LilyPond already works well on 64-bit architectures. (I'm using it
> > > on a x86_64 laptop currently). What makes you think it needs more
> > > work?
> > 
> > His headers show "X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)" so this is
> > likely a guess regarding the lack of availability of a 64-bit MacOSX
> > version from the main site.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, that's rather an Apple licensing issue.  Addressing it
> > would likely require moving the MacOSX compilation environment on GUB
> >  from Apple's proprietary SDKs (which don't
> > have anything allowing cross-compilation for 64bit systems) to a form of
> > free Darwin-only.  Certainly a worthwhile goal but probably quite
> > different from what the OP thinks the problem is here.
> > 
> > -- 
> > David Kastrup
> 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Would like to develop

[Juan Lucas Rey]

Hi thanks for the swift response on New year's Eve no less.

I am referring at the problem installing from brew, or even the fact that the 
instructions for using terminal lily pond should be updated to reflect the fact 
that zsh is the new default terminal (I think the tutorial assumes bash)

But mainly the issue would be lilypond not working with brew out of the box

> On 31 Dec 2020, at 15:51, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Han-Wen Nienhuys  writes:
> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 4:05 PM Juan Lucas Rey 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello
>>> 
>>> I am currently an Engineer working regularly with C++17 at Bloomberg, and
>>> would like to be a contributor to lilypond. In particular I would like to
>>> take as first objective to make it compatible with 64 bit compilation.
>>> 
>>> Is this an objective that is desirable by the rest of the team? Was it
>>> attempted before?
>> 
>> 
>> I think LilyPond already works well on 64-bit architectures. (I'm using it
>> on a x86_64 laptop currently). What makes you think it needs more
>> work?
> 
> His headers show "X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)" so this is
> likely a guess regarding the lack of availability of a 64-bit MacOSX
> version from the main site.
> 
> Unfortunately, that's rather an Apple licensing issue.  Addressing it
> would likely require moving the MacOSX compilation environment on GUB
>  from Apple's proprietary SDKs (which don't
> have anything allowing cross-compilation for 64bit systems) to a form of
> free Darwin-only.  Certainly a worthwhile goal but probably quite
> different from what the OP thinks the problem is here.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup

Re: Would like to develop

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys  writes:

> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 4:05 PM Juan Lucas Rey 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I am currently an Engineer working regularly with C++17 at Bloomberg, and
>> would like to be a contributor to lilypond. In particular I would like to
>> take as first objective to make it compatible with 64 bit compilation.
>>
>> Is this an objective that is desirable by the rest of the team? Was it
>> attempted before?
>
>
> I think LilyPond already works well on 64-bit architectures. (I'm using it
> on a x86_64 laptop currently). What makes you think it needs more
> work?

His headers show "X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)" so this is
likely a guess regarding the lack of availability of a 64-bit MacOSX
version from the main site.

Unfortunately, that's rather an Apple licensing issue.  Addressing it
would likely require moving the MacOSX compilation environment on GUB
 from Apple's proprietary SDKs (which don't
have anything allowing cross-compilation for 64bit systems) to a form of
free Darwin-only.  Certainly a worthwhile goal but probably quite
different from what the OP thinks the problem is here.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Would like to develop

[Dan Eble]

On Dec 31, 2020, at 10:23, Han-Wen Nienhuys  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 4:05 PM Juan Lucas Rey 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello
>> 
>> I am currently an Engineer working regularly with C++17 at Bloomberg, and
>> would like to be a contributor to lilypond. In particular I would like to
>> take as first objective to make it compatible with 64 bit compilation.
>> 
>> Is this an objective that is desirable by the rest of the team? Was it
>> attempted before?
> 
> 
> I think LilyPond already works well on 64-bit architectures. (I'm using it
> on a x86_64 laptop currently). What makes you think it needs more work?

Juan,

What Han-Wen means is, "What makes you think it needs more work _in that area_?"

It obviously needs work in general:
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues

Contributions are welcome, and it was proper to ask on this list before 
starting up, because some of us have momentum in certain areas.

I assume that since you are asking about 64-bit compilation, you haven't gotten 
the source and tried to build it yet.  Have you seen the Contributor's Guide at 
http://lilypond.org/development.html ?
— 
Dan

Re: Would like to develop

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 4:05 PM Juan Lucas Rey 
wrote:

> Hello
>
> I am currently an Engineer working regularly with C++17 at Bloomberg, and
> would like to be a contributor to lilypond. In particular I would like to
> take as first objective to make it compatible with 64 bit compilation.
>
> Is this an objective that is desirable by the rest of the team? Was it
> attempted before?


I think LilyPond already works well on 64-bit architectures. (I'm using it
on a x86_64 laptop currently). What makes you think it needs more work?

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

Would like to develop

[Juan Lucas Rey]

Hello

I am currently an Engineer working regularly with C++17 at Bloomberg, and would 
like to be a contributor to lilypond. In particular I would like to take as 
first objective to make it compatible with 64 bit compilation.

Is this an objective that is desirable by the rest of the team? Was it 
attempted before?

Thanks,
Lucas