Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Hans Åberg]

> On Oct 19, 2023, at 12:47, Ian West  wrote:
> 
> From the attached photo you will see that I created in 'home'  a folder 
> called 'LilyPondArea', and in that a folder called 'lilypond-2.24.2'. In the 
> former I placed the downloaded tar, and in the latter the unpacked files of 
> lilypond-2.24.2 (i.e. 'bin', etc)

There is a problem if downloaded with a browser, because MacOS marks all 
executables (unix programs) as unknown, and to fix them all one by one is a 
chore. So it is better to use the Terminal:

Open a new Terminal window, type "pwd", it should show your home directory 
path. Then (only type what is after "% ":
% cd LilyPondArea
% curl -L 
"https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/releases/v2.24.2/downloads/lilypond-2.24.2-darwin-x86_64.tar.gz;
 --output lilypond-2.24.2.tar.gz
% tar -xf lilypond-2.24.2-darwin-x86_64.tar.gz
You don't have to type the full name "lilypond……": after a few letter, just 
type  and the shell will complete. The link given to "curl" is what is 
listed on the page https://lilypond.org/download.html. The option -L means to 
redirect to the real link, and --output … is a name that you chose. It is 
simpler to use wget, but the one I have is from MacPorts.

Then, for the LilyPond files, you might create a directory in the Documents 
folder, as if you have iCloud, it gets saved there.

To use the LilyPond program from Terminal, use:
% ~/LilyPondArea/lilypond-2.24.2/bin/lilypond file.ly
or with other options such as --version or --help.

To simplify, you might write a script in Terminal:
% touch lilypond
% open -t lilypond
First command creates a file; the second opens in the text editor chosen for 
.txt files. One can also write:
% open -a TextEdit lilypond
Paste, save and close:
export LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8
export LANG=en_US.UTF-8
exec HOME/LilyPondArea/bin/lilypond "$@"

Here, HOME is the "pwd" path you got above.

Then change permissions, so that any can run it:
% chmod a+x lilypond

Then install it on your system:
% sudo cp lilypond /usr/local/bin
This requires your password to be written.

But now when you want to run lilypond, instead type
% lilypond file.ly

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Werner LEMBERG]

> From the attached photo you will see that I created in 'home' a
> folder called 'LilyPondArea', and in that a folder called
> 'lilypond-2.24.2'. In the former I placed the downloaded tar, and in
> the latter the unpacked files of lilypond-2.24.2 (i.e. 'bin', etc)

Looks good.

> I use Textedit to create and save a 'file.ly' as directed and I saved
> it in lilypond-2.24.2, i.e. with bin, etc.

I strongly recommend that you do *not* do that.  You should rather use
a separate directory to store your `.ly` files.  It's far too easy to
accidentally delete the whole 'lilypond-2.24.2' directory if you
upgrade to, say 'lilypond-2.24.3'.

> Now (moment of truth). I open Terminal, go to 'home', create the
> path to bin, as:- ~/LilyPondArea/lilypond-2.24.2/bin

What do you mean with 'create a path'?  Assuming you have created file
`foo.ly` in directory `~/MyLilyPondDocs/`, and you are currently in
this directory (which you can check in the terminal by calling the
`pwd` command) it is sufficient to call the LilyPond binary with the
whole path:

```
~/LilyPondArea/lilypond-2.24.2/bin/lilypond foo.ly
```

> By listing ('ls'), I note that file.ly is in there with bin, but as
> file.ly.txt .

This is strange.  It looks like an artifact of your editor.  LilyPond
doesn't care how the file is actually called (it's a Windows thing to
rely on file extensions), but normally it has extension `.ly` – maybe
you have to change the preferences of your editor to not automatically
add `.txt` to the file name.

Assuming that you can't change that for whatever reason, running
LilyPond on a file `foo.ly.txt` works just fine, too.  However, the
resulting PDF file is then called `foo.ly.pdf`.

> (I believe a genuine lilypond file is just a text file with suffix
> '.ly'.)

Correct.

> The manual instructions say "you can run"
> /.../lilypond-x.y.z/bin/lilypond file.ly
> But what do you/they mean by "run"? 

'Run' means to type a command into the terminal and execute it by
pressing the Enter key.

> Do I still have to change permissions, as indicated by Hans Åberg?

Theoretically, everything should be fine.  Maybe there are some
special precautions due to MacOS restrictions (which I don't know,
sorry), but I guess you have to take care of them only the first time.

> Do I still have to use 'sudo' as indicated by Hans Åberg?

No.  You have unpacked the LilyPond tar bundle in your home directory,
to which you have full access.


Werner

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le samedi 07 octobre 2023 à 17:46 +0100, Ian West a écrit :
> Was there a version (or a build) of 2.20.0 that ran on 64 bit machines? Some
> say there was not; I think there was and that I used it.


Well, at some point there was an *unofficial* build of 2.20 around as a
workaround for the lack of an official
build. https://gitlab.com/marnen/lilypond-mac-builder/-/releases

This unofficial build was not available for 2.22.

Official builds came with 2.23.6, as I said earlier.



> Beyond this last question I am done. I shall revert to using 2.18 on a old
> MacBook that still words; transferriing output to the 64-bit M2 machine for
> midi and for printing. 


Obviously, I am not going to recommend this ­— especially since if you ever need
help, nobody is going to have LilyPond 2.18 around to check that the code they
post to help you works in that version. (Version 2.18 was released 10 years ago,
which is an eternity in software time scales.)

Your choice is yours, but I honestly don't understand your reluctance towards
Frescobaldi. If you simply ignore the extra features, it works just like the old
minimalistic editor.

Regards,
Jean




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

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Hans Åberg]

> On Oct 7, 2023, at 18:46, Ian West  wrote:
> 
> I can see that it is a complex business constructing a new software package.
> 
> I was under the impression that, on 12 Aug 2022, I downloaded lilypong02.20.0 
> build 20200311175017-darwin-64.tar, unpacked it and ran the package on my 
> 64-bit M2 MacBookAir running Ventura 13.4.1
> It ran successfully (once I had satisfied it that GS was ‘safe’. I used it 
> successfully for a year. 

From what I can see, there is
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/releases/v2.24.2/downloads/lilypond-2.24.2-darwin-x86_64.tar.gz
listed on the page
https://lilypond.org/download.html

Download it, and unpack it. Probably it can be put anywhere, if compiled with 
relative links.

To use it: 

In Frescobaldi, Preferences, say which one binary to use.

Otherwise, use Terminal, or any other program that calls the binary.

Either call the binary with full or relative (Unix style) path in Terminal, or 
set the environment variable PATH to include its directory "bin", or write a 
script which includes it. The script can be put in /usr/local/bin/ as that is 
included by default in PATH. See what the PATH is say one of
echo $PATH
env

A script named "lilypond" put in say /usr/local/bin/ is a text file that may 
contain:
export LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8
export LANG=en_US.UTF-8
exec /opt/local/bin/lilypond "$@"
where /opt/local/bin/lilypond is if it is MacPorts, otherwise whatever path you 
have chosen.

After making the text file named "lilypond", make
chmod a+x lilypond
sudo cp lilypond /usr/local/bin/

Then, in to run it in Terminal, just write
lilypond …

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Ian West]

I can see that it is a complex business constructing a new software package.

I was under the impression that, on 12 Aug 2022, I downloaded lilypong02.20.0 
build 20200311175017-darwin-64.tar, unpacked it and ran the package on my 
64-bit M2 MacBookAir running Ventura 13.4.1
It ran successfully (once I had satisfied it that GS was ‘safe’. I used it 
successfully for a year. 

Was there a version (or a build) of 2.20.0 that ran on 64 bit machines? Some 
say there was not; I think there was and that I used it. 

Beyond this last question I am done. I shall revert to using 2.18 on a old 
MacBook that still words; transferriing output to the 64-bit M2 machine for 
midi and for printing.  Yours Ian West

===
> On 7 Oct 2023, at 09:27, Hans Åberg  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 7, 2023, at 07:43, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
>> 
>>> libpaper is listed on
>>> https://ports.macports.org/port/ghostscript/details/
>>> 
>>> Well, that's too bad since there is no actual license
>>> incompatibility due to the use as subprocess, as already noted by
>>> several others. Not sure if MacPorts can be taught that.
>> 
>> It would be a manual override by the MacPorts people to get pre-built
>> LilyPond binaries.
>> 
>> However, a better solution to the whole problem is actually quite
>> simple, providing someone has some experience with MacPorts and a bit
>> of spare time: Just provide a Pull Request for
>> 
>> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/66653
>> 
>> to get an LGPLed 'libpaper' library.
> 
> Dependent dynamic libraries, when binaries, are in MacPorts not bundled with 
> the programs that depend on them, but installed separately, and linked at 
> runtime. From a copyright point of view, this does not seem different from 
> calling another installed program.
> 
> 
> 

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Hans Åberg]

> On Oct 7, 2023, at 07:43, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
>> libpaper is listed on
>> https://ports.macports.org/port/ghostscript/details/
>> 
>> Well, that's too bad since there is no actual license
>> incompatibility due to the use as subprocess, as already noted by
>> several others. Not sure if MacPorts can be taught that.
> 
> It would be a manual override by the MacPorts people to get pre-built
> LilyPond binaries.
> 
> However, a better solution to the whole problem is actually quite
> simple, providing someone has some experience with MacPorts and a bit
> of spare time: Just provide a Pull Request for
> 
>  https://trac.macports.org/ticket/66653
> 
> to get an LGPLed 'libpaper' library.

Dependent dynamic libraries, when binaries, are in MacPorts not bundled with 
the programs that depend on them, but installed separately, and linked at 
runtime. From a copyright point of view, this does not seem different from 
calling another installed program.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> I think it's ghostscript – there are no pre-built packages
>> available either.  While LilyPond doesn't link to it in normal
>> builds, gs is needed for converting LilyPond's EPS output files to
>> PDF.  In other words, a MacPorts user still needs a compiler...
> 
> Damn, you are right. libpaper is listed on
> https://ports.macports.org/port/ghostscript/details/
>
> Well, that's too bad since there is no actual license
> incompatibility due to the use as subprocess, as already noted by
> several others. Not sure if MacPorts can be taught that.

It would be a manual override by the MacPorts people to get pre-built
LilyPond binaries.

However, a better solution to the whole problem is actually quite
simple, providing someone has some experience with MacPorts and a bit
of spare time: Just provide a Pull Request for

  https://trac.macports.org/ticket/66653

to get an LGPLed 'libpaper' library.  It essentially means to clone
the 'macports-ports' repository and change the existing, very small
Portfile at

  https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/print/libpaper/Portfile

to use 

  https://github.com/rrthomas/libpaper

instead of the old Debian stuff, also checking and modifying the other
descriptive variables in this file accordingly.

I consider the documentation at https://guide.macports.org/ as quite
good and helpful for writing and testing Portfiles.


Werner

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup  writes:

> msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks.  I think it's ghostscript – there are no pre-built packages
>>> available either.  While LilyPond doesn't link to it in normal builds,
>>> gs is needed for converting LilyPond's EPS output files to PDF.  In
>>> other words, a MacPorts user still needs a compiler...
>>
>> If LilyPond doesn't link to gs but only execs it, then gs having an
>> incompatible version of GPL from LilyPond's version should not render
>> either binary undistributable, even together.  GNU's position seems to
>> be that exec is a boundary across which it's not necessary for
>> licenses to be compatible.
>
> GNU has no position, the FSF has.

Post Scriptum: of course in this case, the relevant interpretation (in
terms of whether one lands before court) would be that of Artifex as the
Ghostscript copyright holder.  I don't think that they'd go to court
over LilyPond using a separately distributed Ghostscript that is not
just usable by LilyPond.

The other way round we are talking about LilyPond copyright holders
going to court because of Ghostscript being called by LilyPond.  This
would only make sense for copyright holders before the time that
Ghostscript became a fixture for graphics processing and TeX was used
instead, so we are talking about copyright holders from LilyPond version
1.x and earlier.  At that time, however, LilyPond was licensed under
GPLv2+.

It just doesn't come together as something that I can see as a viable
threat scenario.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean Abou Samra]




> Le 6 oct. 2023 à 23:18, Werner LEMBERG  a écrit :
> Thanks.  I think it's ghostscript – there are no pre-built packages
> available either.  While LilyPond doesn't link to it in normal builds,
> gs is needed for converting LilyPond's EPS output files to PDF.  In
> other words, a MacPorts user still needs a compiler...


Damn, you are right. libpaper is listed on 
https://ports.macports.org/port/ghostscript/details/

(We build without it in the official binaries: 
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/blob/master/release/binaries/lib/dependencies.py#L260
 )


Well, that's too bad since there is no actual license incompatibility due to 
the use as subprocess, as already noted by several others. Not sure if MacPorts 
can be taught that.

(And I wrote very wrong things in my previous emails: even in the official 
binaries, there is software under a non-GPLv3-compatible license, namely 
Ghostscript itself, which is AGPL. Sorry for that.)

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[David Kastrup]

msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes:

> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> Thanks.  I think it's ghostscript – there are no pre-built packages
>> available either.  While LilyPond doesn't link to it in normal builds,
>> gs is needed for converting LilyPond's EPS output files to PDF.  In
>> other words, a MacPorts user still needs a compiler...
>
> If LilyPond doesn't link to gs but only execs it, then gs having an
> incompatible version of GPL from LilyPond's version should not render
> either binary undistributable, even together.  GNU's position seems to
> be that exec is a boundary across which it's not necessary for
> licenses to be compatible.

GNU has no position, the FSF has.  And it is sort of fuzzier: after all,
dynamic libraries are also some kind of boundary.  The principal
differentiation is whether that boundary is artificial and the separate
parts operate as a single unseparable unit.

Ghostscript works with PostScript as a generic interface, it has lots of
other uses, and LilyPond can work without using Ghostscript (it can
produce PostScript files instead).

I think that puts enough of a conceptual barrier between the two.  Using
the Ghostscript API would be different: I'd expect distributions to
avoid that without explicit non-trivial user action.

> Of course, whether MacPorts's automated determination of
> distributability can capture this distinction, is another question.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[mskala]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> Thanks.  I think it's ghostscript – there are no pre-built packages
> available either.  While LilyPond doesn't link to it in normal builds,
> gs is needed for converting LilyPond's EPS output files to PDF.  In
> other words, a MacPorts user still needs a compiler...

If LilyPond doesn't link to gs but only execs it, then gs having an
incompatible version of GPL from LilyPond's version should not render
either binary undistributable, even together.  GNU's position seems to be
that exec is a boundary across which it's not necessary for licenses to be
compatible.  Of course, whether MacPorts's automated determination of
distributability can capture this distinction, is another question.

-- 
Matthew Skala
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before tribes.
https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Ah, now I remember, thanks!  I wasn't fluent enough then with the
>> 'ports' program to find out which of the dependencies actually uses
>> libpaper, since LilyPond itself [doesn't use it](
>> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/textproc/lilypond/Portfile
>> )
> 
> It's most likely texlive-bin (even thought lilypond only require
> texlive-fonts-recommended end texlive-metapost, they both require
> texlive-bin as a dependency) or ghostscript.

Thanks.  I think it's ghostscript – there are no pre-built packages
available either.  While LilyPond doesn't link to it in normal builds,
gs is needed for converting LilyPond's EPS output files to PDF.  In
other words, a MacPorts user still needs a compiler...


Werner

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean-Julien Fleck]

Le ven. 6 oct. 2023 à 22:35, Werner LEMBERG  a écrit :

>
> > It's in the non-distributable list:
> >
> > not-distributable.txt:lilypond "lilypond" is not distributable
> > because its license "GPL-3+" conflicts with license "GPL-2" of
> > dependency "libpaper" not-distributable.txt:lilypond-devel
> > "lilypond-devel" is not distributable because its license "GPL-3+"
> > conflicts with license "GPL-2" of dependency "libpaper"
>
> Ah, now I remember, thanks!  I wasn't fluent enough then with the
> 'ports' program to find out which of the dependencies actually uses
> libpaper, since LilyPond itself [doesn't use
> it](
> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/textproc/lilypond/Portfile
> )
>

It's most likely texlive-bin (even thought lilypond only require
texlive-fonts-recommended end texlive-metapost, they both require
texlive-bin as a dependency) or ghostscript.

~>port search --depends libpaper
a2ps @4.15.5 (print)
an Any to PostScript filter.

barcode @0.99_1 (textproc, print)
convert text strings to printed barcodes

ghostscript @10.02.0 (print)
GPL Ghostscript, An interpreter for PostScript and PDF

psbind @20090315_5 (textproc, print)
psbind is a smarter psnup

texlive-bin @2023.66589_1 (tex)
TeX Live Binaries.

xmlto @0.0.28_6 (textproc)
Convert an XML document to another format based on XSL or other tools

xpdf @3.04_3 (graphics, print)
Xpdf is a viewer for PDF files.


-- 
JJ Fleck
Physique et Informatique
PCSI1 Lycée Kléber

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Ah, now I remember, thanks!  I wasn't fluent enough then with the
> 'ports' program to find out which of the dependencies actually uses
> libpaper, since LilyPond itself [doesn't use
> it](https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/textproc/lilypond/Portfile)

I've even asked to switch to a GPL3 version of libpaper:

  https://trac.macports.org/ticket/66653

Maybe a MacPorts guy can contribute a Pull Request to do this update
(which shouldn't be too hard) — as the ticket says, a bunch of
programs would benefit.


Werner

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Werner LEMBERG]

> It's in the non-distributable list:
> 
> not-distributable.txt:lilypond "lilypond" is not distributable
> because its license "GPL-3+" conflicts with license "GPL-2" of
> dependency "libpaper" not-distributable.txt:lilypond-devel
> "lilypond-devel" is not distributable because its license "GPL-3+"
> conflicts with license "GPL-2" of dependency "libpaper"

Ah, now I remember, thanks!  I wasn't fluent enough then with the
'ports' program to find out which of the dependencies actually uses
libpaper, since LilyPond itself [doesn't use
it](https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/textproc/lilypond/Portfile)


Werner

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean-Julien Fleck]

Hello,

Le ven. 6 oct. 2023 à 15:19, Werner LEMBERG  a écrit :

>
> > All of LilyPond's dependencies definitely are GPLv3-compatible (or
> > we could not distribute official binaries on lilypond.org).
>
> I don't have access to my old Mac in the next days, but there is a
> possibility to actually check that in more detail.  One of the
> MacPorts maintainers, Joshua Root, wrote the following some time ago
> on the 'macports-users' list:
>
>   > List which ports do and don't have an archive available (for your
>   > current OS version and arch):
>   > 
>   >
>   > List which ports are and aren't considered distributable:
>   > 
>
> Maybe somebody who is using MacPorts can run those two TCL scripts and
> report back, especially the second one?  If LilyPond doesn't appear in
> the non-distributable list it should be possible to ask the MacPorts
> maintainers to actively switch on binary-package generation.  If this
> can be done, installation of LilyPond should be *much* faster on
> MacPorts.
>

It's in the non-distributable list:

not-distributable.txt:lilypond "lilypond" is not distributable because its
license "GPL-3+" conflicts with license "GPL-2" of dependency "libpaper"
not-distributable.txt:lilypond-devel "lilypond-devel" is not distributable
because its license "GPL-3+" conflicts with license "GPL-2" of dependency
"libpaper"

The first script is still running. I will report when it ends.

-- 
JJ Fleck
Physique et Informatique
PCSI1 Lycée Kléber

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Again: license issues, as far as I know (but not from Apple in this
>> case).
>
> Are you sure?  It seems to me that it just wants clang from XCode.
> I can't imagine what else could be useful for building LilyPond and
> provided by XCode.

Well, there are no pre-built 'lilypond' (or 'lilypond-devel') binary
packages available on https://packages.macports.org, so yes, it seems
that LilyPond must be always compiled.  I apparently misremembered,
sorry.

>> There are some programs, libraries, etc., that MacPorts is not
>> allowed to distribute in binary form (see thread
>> https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/2022-September/051424.html
>> for more information).  Instead, they must always be compiled on
>> the target computer (i.e., the computer you are actually using).  I
>> currently don't know which one, but at least one of LilyPond's
>> prerequisites apparently is affected by that.
>
> All of LilyPond's dependencies definitely are GPLv3-compatible (or
> we could not distribute official binaries on lilypond.org).

I don't have access to my old Mac in the next days, but there is a
possibility to actually check that in more detail.  One of the
MacPorts maintainers, Joshua Root, wrote the following some time ago
on the 'macports-users' list:

  > List which ports do and don't have an archive available (for your
  > current OS version and arch):
  > 
  >
  > List which ports are and aren't considered distributable:
  > 

Maybe somebody who is using MacPorts can run those two TCL scripts and
report back, especially the second one?  If LilyPond doesn't appear in
the non-distributable list it should be possible to ask the MacPorts
maintainers to actively switch on binary-package generation.  If this
can be done, installation of LilyPond should be *much* faster on
MacPorts.


Werner

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 6 oct. 2023 à 07:16, Werner LEMBERG  a écrit :
> Again: license issues, as far as I know (but not from Apple in this
> case).


Are you sure? It seems to me that it just wants clang from XCode. I can't 
imagine what else could be useful for building LilyPond and provided by XCode.


> There are some programs, libraries, etc., that MacPorts is not
> allowed to distribute in binary form (see thread
> https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/2022-September/051424.html
> for more information).  Instead, they must always be compiled on the
> target computer (i.e., the computer you are actually using).  I
> currently don't know which one, but at least one of LilyPond's
> prerequisites apparently is affected by that.


All of LilyPond's dependencies definitely are GPLv3-compatible (or we could not 
distribute official binaries on lilypond.org).


> On the other hand: Installing Xcode is not difficult, and it has to be
> done only once.  If you are going to use MacPorts (which I highly
> recommend in general) you should do this.


IMHO, MacPorts is nice, but for technical people who are comfortable using a 
terminal.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Werner LEMBERG]

> You are very kind.  I shall give it a go. But I think you will have
> to agree that this is some 5 orders (***) of magnitude more complex
> than versions: 2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, and 2.20.0.  I never would have got
> into Lilypond were I starting from here.

Please always bear in mind that *none* of the core LilyPond developers
is actually using Apple hardware, or at least not by default.  Apple's
license conditions have changed over time – they now mandate that you
*must* use Apple hardware to compile Apple apps; this complicates
matters enormously for us.

> But you raise another problem; arm64 or x86_64? I read elsewhere "An
> Apple M1 or M2 processor is also sometimes referred to by the
> architecture name of aarch64 or arm64." Or maybe it does not matter.

This has been addressed already in another e-mail.

> ianwest@Ians-MacBook-Air ~ % sudo port install lilypond
> 
> Error: Please install Xcode and/or run xcode-select to specify its
>location.  [...]

Again: license issues, as far as I know (but not from Apple in this
case).  There are some programs, libraries, etc., that MacPorts is not
allowed to distribute in binary form (see thread
https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/2022-September/051424.html
for more information).  Instead, they must always be compiled on the
target computer (i.e., the computer you are actually using).  I
currently don't know which one, but at least one of LilyPond's
prerequisites apparently is affected by that.

On the other hand: Installing Xcode is not difficult, and it has to be
done only once.  If you are going to use MacPorts (which I highly
recommend in general) you should do this.

> should I download a zipped lilypond package before trying to install
> it?

This has also already been addressed in another e-mail.  In short: Use
the MacOS binary provided by lilypond.org if you don't want to go the
MacPorts route.


Werner

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 6 oct. 2023 à 01:23, Knute Snortum  a écrit :
> 
> I don't think you ever had the ability to just press a button and install 
> LilyPond.


It used to be true on macOS and Windows. There was a (very minimal) GUI 
application with basically a simple text editor and a menu button to compile 
the score.

What you are describing is how it used to be under Linux.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Werner LEMBERG]

David,


> Perhaps that might be made clearer in the macOS section of
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/download .

Could you provide better wording for this and the other issues you are
mentioning?  I can then incorporate your changes into the
documentation.


Werner

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[David Wright]

On Thu 05 Oct 2023 at 23:12:44 (+0200), Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > Le 5 oct. 2023 à 22:39, Ian West  a écrit :
> > Dear David (copied to Jean, and Paul,)
> > You are very kind. I shall give it a go. But I think you will have to 
> > agree that this is some 5 orders (***) of magnitude more complex than 
> > versions: 2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, and 2.20.0. I never would have got into 
> > Lilypond were I starting from here.
> > 
> > But you raise another problem; arm64 or x86_64? I read elsewhere "An 
> > Apple M1 or M2 processor is also sometimes referred to by the architecture 
> > name of aarch64 or arm64." Or maybe it does not matter. 
> 
> Even for Apple Silicon (M1/M2, aka arm64, aka aarch64), the official 
> downloads from lilypond.org are built for x86_64. They can still run on Apple 
> Silicon thanks to the automatic emulation that is done by the system.
> 
> Consequently, when you follow the official installation procedure, you do 
> *not* have to choose between x86_64 and arm64 since the only choice is x86_64.
> 
> (Providing native arm64 executables officially would be nice, since these 
> could be faster on Apple Silicon than x86_64 emulation, but the machine we 
> currently use for macOS releases is x86_64.)

Perhaps that might be made clearer in the macOS section of
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/download .

> > Following the MacPorts route,
> 
> But why do you want to follow the MacPorts route now?
> You are not solving problems here, only creating problems.
> MacPorts is great for terminal aficionados. If you are not such a person, 
> stay away from it.

Perhaps because I wrote about it. (The OP's original reference was
very much in passing.)

The reference above mentions "For older macOS versions, please use
MacPorts", but LM §1.4 doesn't make that distinction.

> When you go to https://lilypond.org/download.html , it says "macOS". I only 
> mentioned the meaning of "darwin" because you went looking into the 
> **previous** download website (that for LilyPond before 2.23.6), which used 
> this terminology.

Again, it might be made clearer in §1.3 that not only does "“darwin”
means it’s for macOS", but that software named …x86_64… also runs on
the arm64 architecture in macOS.

> For what it's worth, I have recently implemented auto-installation of 
> LilyPond in Frescobaldi.
> 
> This means that after the next Frescobaldi release (hopefully soonish) the 
> procedure will look more like "download the Frescobaldi .app and double-click 
> to open, get a screen proposing to install LilyPond, click OK, done".
> 
> That's about as close to easy you can get without reintroducing all the 
> technical problems linked with the old "LilyPond.app" packaging.

When you reverse the order of downloads in §1.3, it could become even
less clear what the best way is to install just LP on a Mac. Would it
be worth expanding the first two paragraphs of §1.4 a little, or is it
really not recommended to run LP without Frescobaldi?

Cheers,
David.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Knute Snortum]

I'm going to jump in here and hopely not muddy the waters.

You say that you need to know the terminal and many other things to install
Lilypond 2.24, but I don't think this is true.  I'm not on a Mac; I'm on
Ubuntu GNU/Linux but they are similar, I believe.  First you go to the
download page:

https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.24/Documentation/web/download

Let's skip MacPorts and HomeBrew and just click on the link in the MacOS
section. Your browser (Safari?) should download this file.  Now, either in
the browser or in the File Finder, go to the download folder (directory)
and open (double-click?) the file.  It should let you extract the
contents.  Choose your Home folder to extract to.

Now you have LilyPond 2.24.2 as "installed" as it's going to be.  What you
do now is up to you.  Do you use Frescobaldi or the terminal or some other
means to edit source files and compile them?  You haven't needed to use the
terminal at all so far and if you choose to use Frescobaldi, you don't have
to use it at all.  It's only if you don't use Frescobaldi that you have to
use the terminal or some other editing program.

I don't think you ever had the ability to just press a button and install
LilyPond.  You still had to download it, like in the instructions above.
The only change is that instead of an installer program you extract
LilyPond to some folder.

--
Knute Snortum


On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:01 PM Ian West  wrote:

> Dear David (copied to Jean, and Paul,)
> You are very kind. I shall give it a go. But I think you will have to
> agree that this is some 5 orders (***) of magnitude more complex than
> versions: 2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, and 2.20.0. I never would have got into
> Lilypond were I starting from here.
>
> But you raise another problem; arm64 or x86_64? I read elsewhere "An
> Apple M1 or M2 processor is also sometimes referred to by the architecture
> name of aarch64 or arm64." Or maybe it does not matter.
>
> Following the MacPorts route, I hit a bump. "Last login: Thu Oct  5
> 14:05:17 on ttys000
>
> ianwest@Ians-MacBook-Air ~ % sudo port install lilypond
>
> Password:
>
> Error:
>
> Error: No Xcode installation was found.
>
> Error: Please install Xcode and/or run xcode-select to specify its
> location.
>
> Error:
>
> Error: Port lilypond requires a full Xcode installation, which was not
> found on your system.
>
> Error: You can install Xcode from the Mac App Store or
> https://developer.apple.com/xcode/
>
> Error: Follow https://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets if you believe
> there
>
> is a bug.
>
> Error: Processing of port lilypond failed
> ianwest@Ians-MacBook-Air ~ %",
> and do not know why this is required. Perhaps I am being naive; should I
> download a zipped lilypond package before trying to install it? Or is it
> integral to the MacPorts business? Well, I tried that, placing the unzipped
> download in the same directory as the MacPorts, but with the same result
> (needing the full set of tools). So I started to download the mentioned
> "tools"; but when I was told it would take 43 hours I aborted.
>
>
> (*** The installation of version 2:24.2 assumes that I know how to use
> terminal, how to use MacPorts, know the difference between arm64 and x86_64
> (all I know is that I am using an "Apple M2 chip"), difference between a
> tar.bz2 package or a tar.gz one, that "darwin" mean "MacOS", and much
> more.  Compared with simply clicking, or double clicking. a zipped package.)
>
> I think Lilypond is spiralling out of my universe. And perhaps out of
> general usefulness.  Pity!  Another day gone from my dwindling stock. There
> is still the music to play!
>
>

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean Abou Samra]



> Le 5 oct. 2023 à 22:39, Ian West  a écrit :
> Dear David (copied to Jean, and Paul,)
>   You are very kind. I shall give it a go. But I think you will have to 
> agree that this is some 5 orders (***) of magnitude more complex than 
> versions: 2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, and 2.20.0. I never would have got into Lilypond 
> were I starting from here.
> 
>   But you raise another problem; arm64 or x86_64? I read elsewhere "An 
> Apple M1 or M2 processor is also sometimes referred to by the architecture 
> name of aarch64 or arm64." Or maybe it does not matter. 


Even for Apple Silicon (M1/M2, aka arm64, aka aarch64), the official downloads 
from lilypond.org are built for x86_64. They can still run on Apple Silicon 
thanks to the automatic emulation that is done by the system.

Consequently, when you follow the official installation procedure, you do *not* 
have to choose between x86_64 and arm64 since the only choice is x86_64.

(Providing native arm64 executables officially would be nice, since these could 
be faster on Apple Silicon than x86_64 emulation, but the machine we currently 
use for macOS releases is x86_64.)


> Following the MacPorts route,

But why do you want to follow the MacPorts route now?

You are not solving problems here, only creating problems.

MacPorts is great for terminal aficionados. If you are not such a person, stay 
away from it.


> I hit a bump. "Last login: Thu Oct  5 14:05:17 on ttys000
> ianwest@Ians-MacBook-Air ~ % sudo port install lilypond
> Password:
> Error: 
> Error: No Xcode installation was found.
> Error: Please install Xcode and/or run xcode-select to specify its location.
> Error: 
> Error: Port lilypond requires a full Xcode installation, which was not found 
> on your system.
> Error: You can install Xcode from the Mac App Store or 
> https://developer.apple.com/xcode/
> Error: Follow https://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets if you believe there
> is a bug.
> Error: Processing of port lilypond failed
> ianwest@Ians-MacBook-Air ~ %", 
> and do not know why this is required. Perhaps I am being naive; should I 
> download a zipped lilypond package before trying to install it? Or is it 
> integral to the MacPorts business? Well, I tried that, placing the unzipped 
> download in the same directory as the MacPorts, but with the same result 
> (needing the full set of tools).


This makes no sense technically; the archives you download from lilypond.org 
have nothing to do with MacPorts.

Again, just forget about MacPorts.


> So I started to download the mentioned "tools"; but when I was told it would 
> take 43 hours I aborted. 
> 
> 
> (*** The installation of version 2:24.2 assumes that I know how to use 
> terminal,


No, it does not.

Nothing on 
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.24/Documentation/learning/graphical-setup-under-macos.html
 mentions a terminal.


> how to use MacPorts,

No.

> know the difference between arm64 and x86_64

No.

> (all I know is that I am using an "Apple M2 chip"), difference between a 
> tar.bz2 package or a tar.gz one,

No. Why?


> that "darwin" mean "MacOS",


Again, no.

When you go to https://lilypond.org/download.html , it says "macOS". I only 
mentioned the meaning of "darwin" because you went looking into the 
**previous** download website (that for LilyPond before 2.23.6), which used 
this terminology.



> and much more.  Compared with simply clicking, or double clicking. a zipped 
> package.)



For what it's worth, I have recently implemented auto-installation of LilyPond 
in Frescobaldi.

This means that after the next Frescobaldi release (hopefully soonish) the 
procedure will look more like "download the Frescobaldi .app and double-click 
to open, get a screen proposing to install LilyPond, click OK, done".

That's about as close to easy you can get without reintroducing all the 
technical problems linked with the old "LilyPond.app" packaging.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Ian West]

Dear David (copied to Jean, and Paul,)
You are very kind. I shall give it a go. But I think you will have to 
agree that this is some 5 orders (***) of magnitude more complex than versions: 
2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, and 2.20.0. I never would have got into Lilypond were I 
starting from here.

But you raise another problem; arm64 or x86_64? I read elsewhere "An 
Apple M1 or M2 processor is also sometimes referred to by the architecture name 
of aarch64 or arm64." Or maybe it does not matter. 

Following the MacPorts route, I hit a bump. "Last login: Thu Oct  5 14:05:17 on 
ttys000
ianwest@Ians-MacBook-Air ~ % sudo port install lilypond
Password:
Error: 
Error: No Xcode installation was found.
Error: Please install Xcode and/or run xcode-select to specify its location.
Error: 
Error: Port lilypond requires a full Xcode installation, which was not found on 
your system.
Error: You can install Xcode from the Mac App Store or 
https://developer.apple.com/xcode/
Error: Follow https://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets if you believe there
is a bug.
Error: Processing of port lilypond failed
ianwest@Ians-MacBook-Air ~ %", 
and do not know why this is required. Perhaps I am being naive; should I 
download a zipped lilypond package before trying to install it? Or is it 
integral to the MacPorts business? Well, I tried that, placing the unzipped 
download in the same directory as the MacPorts, but with the same result 
(needing the full set of tools). So I started to download the mentioned 
"tools"; but when I was told it would take 43 hours I aborted. 


(*** The installation of version 2:24.2 assumes that I know how to use 
terminal, how to use MacPorts, know the difference between arm64 and x86_64 
(all I know is that I am using an "Apple M2 chip"), difference between a 
tar.bz2 package or a tar.gz one, that "darwin" mean "MacOS", and much more.  
Compared with simply clicking, or double clicking. a zipped package.)

I think Lilypond is spiralling out of my universe. And perhaps out of general 
usefulness.  Pity!  Another day gone from my dwindling stock. There is still 
the music to play!

Ian
---
Ian West
9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,
BANBURY, OX17 2NB,
Tel: 01295 713 889; (Mobile: 07474 572 588)
==

> On 5 Oct 2023, at 16:36, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> On Thu 05 Oct 2023 at 14:49:41 (+0100), Ian West wrote:
>> Dear Lilypond team, continuing from 1 Sept 17:43hrs. (similar problems to 
>> Mark Stephen Mrotek though he is Windows.)
>> 
>>  I successfully used version 2.20.0 on my MacBook Air M2 2022, macOS 
>> 13.4.1 from August 2022 till July 2023. Now I cannot, and I have failed (for 
>> a month) to overcome the problem. I presumed it hit a bug, or developed a 
>> mutation. I deleated it and tried to re-extracte the zip. 
>> 
>>  I want to use my current MacBook Air M2 2022, macOS 13.4.1. I picked up 
>> the idea somewhere that the 64-bit M2 processor requires a certain version 
>> of lilypond, but I find that hard to confirm on the web. ? Is it true?
>>  
>>  I have been using various versions of lilipond for 13 years (versions: 
>> 2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, 2.20.0, and now 2.24.1). 
>> I do not want to use Frescobaldi.  When I unzip 2.24.1 I find it does not 
>> contain a simple exe file with lilypond icon. It looks as though the package 
>> is designed to work with Frescobaldi and not on its own. Is that true. I do 
>> not want to use Frescobaldi. Are there instructions for using 2.24 WITHOUT 
>> Frescobaldi. 
>> 
>> I re-extracting the lilypond-2.20.0-darwin-64.tar that I downloaded last 
>> year. That gave an error signal.
>> I downloaded lilypond-2.20.0-1.darwin-x86.tar.bz2, from Index of 
>> /download/binaries/darwin-x86 
>>  to see if that 
>> worked as my previous build 20200311175017. It did not. Perhaps because it 
>> is for Windows, while I am macOS. There was a 'Stop' sign (white anulus and 
>> bar) over the icon and does not work. Should this be explained? 
>> 
>> Last year I downloaded MacPorts-2.7.2-12-Moneteray.pkg, but I have no idea 
>> why, nor what it does, nor if I used it. 
> 
> I pretended I was a Mac user wanting to use just LP. I clicked through:
> 
>  https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/manuals.html
>  https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/learning/installing
>  https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/learning/command-line-setup
> 
> and picked MacPorts as you'd mentioned it.
> 
>  https://www.macports.org/
> 
> "thousands of ports":
> 
>  https://ports.macports.org/
> 
> typed lilypond in the box:
> 
>  https://ports.macports.org/port/lilypond
> 
> It says:
> "To install lilypond, paste this in macOS terminal after installing MacPorts
>  sudo port install lilypond"
> where MacPorts is a link to:
> 
>  https://www.macports.org/install.php
> 
> which presumably isn't going to work for Linux.
> That page has a "More instructions" button, and a Details link to:
> 
>  

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 5 oct. 2023 à 21:26, David Wright  a écrit :
> 
> I'm sorry—perhaps I attached too much significance to the OP's
> "I do not want to use Frescobaldi." If a GUI is required,
> I would have thought a Mac editor could supply that, and
> drag-and-drop could run LP on the file that's dropped onto it.



There is nothing to drag and drop onto because there is no “application” in the 
strict macOS sense (.app bundle). This doesn't change with MacPorts (or 
Homebrew, for that matter).



> But regardless of the OP's target, maybe that type of instruction
> sequence be useful to a Mac user who didn't want a GUI? The
> ones given in LM §§1.1–1.3 seem very tied to Frescobaldi, and I'm
> uncertain of the relationship between the macOS section of
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/download and
> the first two paragraphs of LM §1.4.


The potential advantages of using Homebrew or MacPorts are:

- Using a single tool to install and uninstall CLI tools
- Possibly smaller downloads, because dependencies can be shared between 
packages

A potential downside is that access to older versions of LilyPond might be less 
easy (I don't know exactly).

All of this is mostly irrelevant to whether you like GUIs.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[David Wright]

On Thu 05 Oct 2023 at 19:43:27 (+0200), Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > Le 5 oct. 2023 à 17:36, David Wright a écrit :
> > 
> > Is this the way you should be going?
> 
> No, it's not going to give him the GUI that he regrets.

I'm sorry—perhaps I attached too much significance to the OP's
"I do not want to use Frescobaldi." If a GUI is required,
I would have thought a Mac editor could supply that, and
drag-and-drop could run LP on the file that's dropped onto it.

But regardless of the OP's target, maybe that type of instruction
sequence be useful to a Mac user who didn't want a GUI? The
ones given in LM §§1.1–1.3 seem very tied to Frescobaldi, and I'm
uncertain of the relationship between the macOS section of
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/download and
the first two paragraphs of LM §1.4.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 5 oct. 2023 à 17:36, David Wright  a écrit :
> 
> Is this the way you should be going?


No, it's not going to give him the GUI that he regrets.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 5 oct. 2023 à 15:49, Ian West  a écrit :Dear Lilypond team, continuing from 1 Sept 17:43hrs. (similar problems to Mark Stephen Mrotek though he is Windows.)	I successfully used version 2.20.0 on my MacBook Air M2 2022, macOS 13.4.1 from August 2022 till July 2023. Now I cannot, and I have failed (for a month) to overcome the problem. I presumed it hit a bug, or developed a mutation. I deleated it and tried to re-extracte the zip. 	I want to use my current MacBook Air M2 2022, macOS 13.4.1. I picked up the idea somewhere that the 64-bit M2 processor requires a certain version of lilypond, but I find that hard to confirm on the web. ? Is it true?macOS 10.15 and later, which includes macOS 13.4.1 that you are using, only support running 64-bit executables, not 32-bit executables. 64-bit builds of LilyPond have only been provided since version 2.23.6.	I have been using various versions of lilipond for 13 years (versions: 2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, 2.20.0, and now 2.24.1). I do not want to use Frescobaldi.Why? We already helped you to increase the font size in the editor.When I unzip 2.24.1 I find it does not contain a simple exe file with lilypond icon. It looks as though the package is designed to work with Frescobaldi and not on its own. Is that true.Not really, but more or less, in a certain sense. It works on its own, but if you use it from the terminal. It does not provide a graphical user interface.It is not specifically designed to work with Frescobaldi but also works with other editors, such as Spontini (but if you don't like installation procedures that don't look like "unpack .dmg and run .app", you're not going to like Spontini).I do not want to use Frescobaldi. Are there instructions for using 2.24 WITHOUT Frescobaldi.See above. I already explained you how to use it from the terminal back in September.I re-extracting the lilypond-2.20.0-darwin-64.tar that I downloaded last year. That gave an error signal.Unsurprising since this is a 32-bit download.I downloaded lilypond-2.20.0-1.darwin-x86.tar.bz2, from Index of /download/binaries/darwin-x86 to see if that worked as my previous build 20200311175017. It did not. Perhaps because it is for Windows, while I am macOS.No, it's for macOS (this is what "darwin" in the name means, it's the name of the macOS kernel), but 32-bit.The page https://lilypond.org/download/binaries/darwin-x86/ contains a warning that these are old downloads (this warning was added recently).There was a 'Stop' sign (white anulus and bar) over the icon and does not work. Should this be explained? Last year I downloaded MacPorts-2.7.2-12-Moneteray.pkg, but I have no idea why, nor what it does, nor if I used it. I could explain it, but in short, it is not the solution to your problem.

Re: Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[David Wright]

On Thu 05 Oct 2023 at 14:49:41 (+0100), Ian West wrote:
> Dear Lilypond team, continuing from 1 Sept 17:43hrs. (similar problems to 
> Mark Stephen Mrotek though he is Windows.)
> 
>   I successfully used version 2.20.0 on my MacBook Air M2 2022, macOS 
> 13.4.1 from August 2022 till July 2023. Now I cannot, and I have failed (for 
> a month) to overcome the problem. I presumed it hit a bug, or developed a 
> mutation. I deleated it and tried to re-extracte the zip. 
> 
>   I want to use my current MacBook Air M2 2022, macOS 13.4.1. I picked up 
> the idea somewhere that the 64-bit M2 processor requires a certain version of 
> lilypond, but I find that hard to confirm on the web. ? Is it true?
>   
>   I have been using various versions of lilipond for 13 years (versions: 
> 2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, 2.20.0, and now 2.24.1). 
> I do not want to use Frescobaldi.  When I unzip 2.24.1 I find it does not 
> contain a simple exe file with lilypond icon. It looks as though the package 
> is designed to work with Frescobaldi and not on its own. Is that true. I do 
> not want to use Frescobaldi. Are there instructions for using 2.24 WITHOUT 
> Frescobaldi. 
> 
> I re-extracting the lilypond-2.20.0-darwin-64.tar that I downloaded last 
> year. That gave an error signal.
> I downloaded lilypond-2.20.0-1.darwin-x86.tar.bz2, from Index of 
> /download/binaries/darwin-x86 
>  to see if that 
> worked as my previous build 20200311175017. It did not. Perhaps because it is 
> for Windows, while I am macOS. There was a 'Stop' sign (white anulus and bar) 
> over the icon and does not work. Should this be explained? 
> 
> Last year I downloaded MacPorts-2.7.2-12-Moneteray.pkg, but I have no idea 
> why, nor what it does, nor if I used it. 

I pretended I was a Mac user wanting to use just LP. I clicked through:

  https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/manuals.html
  https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/learning/installing
  https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/learning/command-line-setup

and picked MacPorts as you'd mentioned it.

  https://www.macports.org/

"thousands of ports":

  https://ports.macports.org/

typed lilypond in the box:

  https://ports.macports.org/port/lilypond

It says:
 "To install lilypond, paste this in macOS terminal after installing MacPorts
  sudo port install lilypond"
where MacPorts is a link to:

  https://www.macports.org/install.php

which presumably isn't going to work for Linux.
That page has a "More instructions" button, and a Details link to:

  https://ports.macports.org/port/lilypond/details/

This last page shows a list of OSes including two Ventura items,
arm64 and x86_64, and that's the OS you say you're running (unlike
Monterey, which comes next in the list).

Is this the way you should be going? If so, you might want to
detail what you click, press, etc, the address of any files you
download, how you unpacked them, where you put them, and when you
run them:

  the directory you're in,
  the directory the program is in,
  the directory the .ly file is in,
  you $PATH at the time,
  a pasted copy of the command and its output from the terminal.

Cheers,
David.

Still failing to operate lilypond 2.20.0 64-bit version.

[Ian West]

Dear Lilypond team, continuing from 1 Sept 17:43hrs. (similar problems to Mark 
Stephen Mrotek though he is Windows.)

I successfully used version 2.20.0 on my MacBook Air M2 2022, macOS 
13.4.1 from August 2022 till July 2023. Now I cannot, and I have failed (for a 
month) to overcome the problem. I presumed it hit a bug, or developed a 
mutation. I deleated it and tried to re-extracte the zip. 

I want to use my current MacBook Air M2 2022, macOS 13.4.1. I picked up 
the idea somewhere that the 64-bit M2 processor requires a certain version of 
lilypond, but I find that hard to confirm on the web. ? Is it true?

I have been using various versions of lilipond for 13 years (versions: 
2.12.3, 2.18.2-1, 2.20.0, and now 2.24.1). 
I do not want to use Frescobaldi.  When I unzip 2.24.1 I find it does not 
contain a simple exe file with lilypond icon. It looks as though the package is 
designed to work with Frescobaldi and not on its own. Is that true. I do not 
want to use Frescobaldi. Are there instructions for using 2.24 WITHOUT 
Frescobaldi. 

I re-extracting the lilypond-2.20.0-darwin-64.tar that I downloaded last year. 
That gave an error signal.
I downloaded lilypond-2.20.0-1.darwin-x86.tar.bz2, from Index of 
/download/binaries/darwin-x86 
 to see if that 
worked as my previous build 20200311175017. It did not. Perhaps because it is 
for Windows, while I am macOS. There was a 'Stop' sign (white anulus and bar) 
over the icon and does not work. Should this be explained? 

Last year I downloaded MacPorts-2.7.2-12-Moneteray.pkg, but I have no idea why, 
nor what it does, nor if I used it. 





Ian West



---
Ian West
9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,
BANBURY, OX17 2NB,
Tel: 01295 713 889; (Mobile: 07474 572 588)
==