Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Thank you. I hope there will be one for 10.15 soon. Or by the time Catalina comes out, a Lilypond build that doesn’t require MacPorts. I know a lot of people who will update without knowing Lilypond will not work anymore. On 17 Jul 2019, at 17:46, Hans Åberg wrote: > > [Please keep the cc to

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[Please keep the cc to the list, so that others can follow the issue.] For MacOS 10.14 or earlier, install MacPorts, and issue in Terminal the command port install lilypond-devel There is probably no MacPorts for 10.15, though. > On 17 Jul 2019, at 16:53, Yentl Tijssens wrote: > > Yes I

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 30 Jun 2019, at 22:49, Yentl Tijssens wrote: > > Hey, > > I’m a bit of a nooby tech enthusiast and upgraded to the Catalina Beta. Of > course Lilypond doesn’t work on that version because it is a 32-bit > application. > I saw your post and was wondering if you could provide me your way

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 3/15/2019 11:12 AM, Karlin High wrote: From what I've seen so far, some Apple open-source things are GPL2. They also have an "Apple Public Software License. I haven't compared it with GPL, not an expert in this area. It turns out that the Free Software Foundation has already reviewed the

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 3/15/2019 8:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Karlin High writes: Phil? Anyone? How much extra effort for macOS builds would be tolerable? (In any case; with or without Apple hardware. All aside from matter-of-principle objections to Apple's license requirement.) It is disingenuous to call it

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > Phil? Anyone? How much extra effort for macOS builds would be tolerable? > > (In any case; with or without Apple hardware. All aside from > matter-of-principle objections to Apple's license requirement.) It is disingenuous to call it "matter-of-principle objections" if we

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 15 Mar 2019, at 13:06, Karlin High wrote: > > On 3/15/2019 4:44 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the > problem exactly? > Here's my understanding so far. > > * The next version of macOS will only run 64-bit software. (The current

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 3/15/2019 4:44 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the problem exactly? Here's my understanding so far. * The next version of macOS will only run 64-bit software. (The current "Mojave" version runs 32-bit, but gives a warning.) *

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 15 Mar 2019, at 10:44, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > If Apple and their lawyers think it is fine to redistribute GPL > binaries made with XCode, then we should be fine too. The one you use now provides GCC4.2 I think it is, but later versions only provides Clang, not the real one but an

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the > problem exactly? I am pretty sure that > > a) Apple has been distributing GPL'd binaries with OSX. I bet they > were built with XCode. GPL-2.0. And of course Apple is not bound by the conditions of its

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the problem exactly? I am pretty sure that a) Apple has been distributing GPL'd binaries with OSX. I bet they were built with XCode. b) Apple has a band of lawyers that ensure that they stay within the constraints of the license. (see

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 21:16, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> Sigh. This discussion stated that they aren't distributing the >>> documentation. Of course distributing the PDF without corresponding >>> source code would

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup wrote: The passage in question reads 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. You may convey a covered work in object code

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> The passage in question reads >>> >>> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. >>> >>> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms >>> of

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> The passage in question reads >> >> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. >> >> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms >> of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the >>

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup wrote: > > The passage in question reads > > 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. > > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms > of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the > machine-readable Corresponding Source under

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 14 Mar 2019, at 17:00, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for everything you distribute. >>> >>> I

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 17:00, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing >>> but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for >>> everything you distribute. >> >> I think it suffices to have it

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Werner LEMBERG writes: >> > IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily > getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even > re-pack them together with

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup wrote: > > Werner LEMBERG writes: > IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Werner LEMBERG writes: >>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily >>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even >>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense. >> >> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily >> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could even >> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense. > > Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration > one has to

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 12:50, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >>> https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages >> >> Also, the MacPorts does not install any documentation, it seems. > > IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily > getting

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

>> >> https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages > > Also, the MacPorts does not install any documentation, it seems. IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac. We could

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 08:40, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > I've just remembered that the MacPorts man page of the `port' > packaging manager shows the following. > > PACKAGING ACTIONS >There are also actions for producing installable packages of >ports: > >mdmg >Creates an

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:50 AM Jacques Menu wrote: > Hello Elaine, > > I use Frescobaldi 2.20.0 quite often on my Mac, and it escaped me that > 3.x.y is available on other platforms… > > I can contribute building it and LilyPond on Mac OS X if needed. > > JM > I would certainly appreciate

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hello Elaine, I use Frescobaldi 2.20.0 quite often on my Mac, and it escaped me that 3.x.y is available on other platforms… I can contribute building it and LilyPond on Mac OS X if needed. JM > Le 9 mars 2019 à 22:08, Flaming Hakama by Elaine a > écrit : > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:34 PM

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:34 PM Kieren MacMillan < kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi, > > > In fact, one of the reasons I have not tried Frescobaldi is that you need > > to use a package manager to install it, and download the developer tools > > (XCode). > > You do? I just download the

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 18:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > Thanks for testing it! You are welcome! >> I made a standalone version using 'port mdmg lilypond-devel' which >> results in a lilypond-devel-2.19.82_4.dmg, on MacOS 10.13.6, and it >> is working after installing: I moved my /opt/ out of

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Thanks for testing it! > I made a standalone version using 'port mdmg lilypond-devel' which > results in a lilypond-devel-2.19.82_4.dmg, on MacOS 10.13.6, and it > is working after installing: I moved my /opt/ out of way, and it > gets installed in a new directory /opt/. It is rather large

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 08:40, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > I've just remembered that the MacPorts man page of the `port' > packaging manager shows the following. > > PACKAGING ACTIONS >There are also actions for producing installable packages of >ports: > ... >mdmg >Creates an

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 3/8/2019 12:34 PM, Jacques Menu wrote: The English version link at the bottom left leads to a 404. Archive.org to the rescue. -- Karlin High Missouri, USA ___

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Il giorno ven 8 mar 2019 alle 19:14, Hans =?iso-8859-1?b?xWJlcmc=?= ha scritto: I think too that it might be better to switch to say Frescobaldi as the official LilyPond editor if you need one, though I haven't used it. Their site is only in Dutch from what I could see, which might be a

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Il giorno ven 8 mar 2019 alle 22:16, David Kastrup ha scritto: If I remember correctly, Frescobaldi can download and install official LilyPond versions. If that's also the case in MacOSX, that would be a strong reason to try providing a no-GUI LilyPond installation for Darwin. This was

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 08:40, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > I've just remembered that the MacPorts man page of the `port' > packaging manager shows the following. ... > I haven't tried this (and I probably won't in the very near future due > to time constraints – on my macOS 10.7.5 I have to compile

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

>> The lilypond-devel version [of MacPorts] lists gcc8 as a library >> dependency, > > This is because lilypond can only be compiled with gcc and not with > clang, contrary to most other software of MacPorts. The compiler > whitelist of the `lilypond-devel' Portfile starts with gcc8; > however,

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kieren MacMillan < kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mar 8, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Flaming Hakama by Elaine < > ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote: > > However, to be clear, if you are basing this suggestion on being able to > > install it via

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hi all, On Mar 8, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote: > However, to be clear, if you are basing this suggestion on being able to > install it via Fescobaldi, I'll reiterate the point that it takes way more > time and hassle to set that up on a mac, since you have to register with

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hi, > In fact, one of the reasons I have not tried Frescobaldi is that you need > to use a package manager to install it, and download the developer tools > (XCode). You do? I just download the binary and run it… Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website:

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> > -- Forwarded message -- > From: David Kastrup > To: Flaming Hakama by Elaine > Cc: lilypond-devel > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 22:16:37 +0100 > Subject: Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond? > Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > > > So, I

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > So, I think the long-term value of Lilypad to the potential user base > (on mac or even other platforms) is close to zero. In the short term, > the main downside would be specifically regarding recruiting new users > by providing an immediate "working"

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

-- Forwarded message -- > From: Kieren MacMillan > To: Karlin High > Cc: David Kastrup , lilypond-devel , > "Hans Åberg" > Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 09:50:19 -0500 > Subject: Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond? > Hi Karlin, > > > Would MacPor

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Jacques Menu wrote: > >> Le 8 mars 2019 à 19:14, Hans Åberg a écrit : >> >> I think too that it might be better to switch to say Frescobaldi as the >> official LilyPond editor if you need one, though I haven't used it. Their >> site is only in Dutch from what I

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 19:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> The lilypond-devel version [of MacPorts] lists gcc8 as a library >> dependency, > > This is because lilypond can only be compiled with gcc and not with > clang, contrary to most other software of MacPorts. The compiler > whitelist of the

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> Le 8 mars 2019 à 19:14, Hans Åberg a écrit : > > >> On 8 Mar 2019, at 15:42, Karlin High wrote: >> >> On 3/8/2019 8:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >>> So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond, and >>> position Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users.

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> The lilypond-devel version [of MacPorts] lists gcc8 as a library > dependency, This is because lilypond can only be compiled with gcc and not with clang, contrary to most other software of MacPorts. The compiler whitelist of the `lilypond-devel' Portfile starts with gcc8; however, it will

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 15:42, Karlin High wrote: > > On 3/8/2019 8:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >> So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond, and >> position Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users. > > Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond?

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > On 3/8/2019 8:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >> So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond, >> and position Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users. > > Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg > reports success

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hi Karlin, > Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg reports > success with this. Or is it important to have something available from > lilypond.org? Let’s use [totally opinion-based] numbers for argument’s sake: people who would download and keep using a version from

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 3/8/2019 8:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond, and position Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users. Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg reports success with this. Or is it important to

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hi all, > The other option is ditching LilyPad and doing a Darwin-only version of > LilyPond, assuming that we can do this with suitably free components. As someone who used LilyPad for the first decade of my Lilypond time, I totally understand the desire to maintain that "turnkey installation"

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM Karlin High wrote: >> The post has its own link >> > > > And this, I think, is our answer: > > " > john daniel > Mar 7, 2019 12:55 PM > (in response to K. High) > A requirement to restrict

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM Karlin High wrote: > The post has its own link > And this, I think, is our answer: " john daniel Mar 7, 2019 12:55 PM (in response to K. High) A requirement to restrict the use of Xcode files to Apple-branded

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 3/4/2019 3:52 PM, David Kastrup wrote: There are moderated forums without actual moderator where any message from a non-member is effectively being discarded. Are you "as registered" as a newcomer may be? If not, this may just be a forum that has been set up (or ended up) in that kind of

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > On 2/28/2019 6:10 AM, Karlin High wrote: >> >> Starting discussion on Apple Developer Forum. Post is currently >> awaiting moderation; it might appear here: >> > > Status update: still awaiting moderator

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/28/2019 6:10 AM, Karlin High wrote: Starting discussion on Apple Developer Forum. Post is currently awaiting moderation; it might appear here: Status update: still awaiting moderator approval. Maybe this is an

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/25/2019 6:09 AM, Karlin High wrote: I'm planing to ask on the Apple Developer Forum about possibilities for Linux cross-compile - explaining our current situation, future options, and software license concerns. Starting discussion on Apple Developer Forum. Post is currently awaiting

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > On 2/26/2019 12:30 PM, Karlin High wrote: >> the "hackintosh" and Virtual Machine possibilities > > I expect Apple's this uptight about using their hardware because their > business model for macOS has income coming from hardware sales instead > of software. That makes

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/26/2019 12:30 PM, Karlin High wrote: the "hackintosh" and Virtual Machine possibilities I expect Apple's this uptight about using their hardware because their business model for macOS has income coming from hardware sales instead of software. Instructions I've seen for getting macOS

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/26/2019 12:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote: It wouldn't allow for using XCode in any form on anything but Apple hardware. Oh, right. That forestalls the "hackintosh" and Virtual Machine possibilities. Thanks for the clarification. -- Karlin High Missouri, USA

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/26/2019 11:59 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: Aren't there any exceptions for DLLs? On OSX, you normally don't do statical linking... If LilyPond was built with XCode on macOS, I expect Apple would be perfectly happy except for App Store. The whole business of dissecting XCode and hauling

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > On 2/26/2019 11:59 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >> Aren't there any exceptions for DLLs? On OSX, you normally don't do >> statical linking... > > If LilyPond was built with XCode on macOS, On Apple hardware. > I expect Apple would be perfectly happy except for App Store. >

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

>> If we link with Apple libraries, we also need to heed the licensing >> conditions of the Apple libraries. Do they stand for this? > > I gather Apple licenses have changed over time. Possibly older > versions of their software were better-aligned with GNU > expectations. I expect this

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/26/2019 4:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote: If we link with Apple libraries, we also need to heed the licensing conditions of the Apple libraries. Do they stand for this? I gather Apple licenses have changed over time. Possibly older versions of their software were better-aligned with GNU

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Carl Sorensen writes: > On 2/25/19, 5:25 PM, "Karlin High" wrote: > > On 2/25/2019 10:44 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > A further look into PureDarwin's website shows that many of the > > Darwin utilities in fact link to closed-source Apple libraries. > > > > So probably we

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 26 Feb 2019, at 01:19, Karlin High wrote: > > On 2/25/2019 1:22 PM, Hans Åberg wrote: >> I have just installed it, and it is 64 bit > > Curious, does the 64-bit resolve the out-of-memory errors that have been > appearing in 32-bit versions? This thread, for example: > >

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/25/19, 5:25 PM, "Karlin High" wrote: On 2/25/2019 10:44 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > A further look into PureDarwin's website shows that many of the Darwin utilities in fact link to closed-source Apple libraries. > > So probably we can't even ship a command-line-only

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/25/2019 10:44 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote: A further look into PureDarwin's website shows that many of the Darwin utilities in fact link to closed-source Apple libraries. So probably we can't even ship a command-line-only version of LilyPond without having linking ability to OSX. Now, I

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/25/2019 1:22 PM, Hans Åberg wrote: I have just installed it, and it is 64 bit Curious, does the 64-bit resolve the out-of-memory errors that have been appearing in 32-bit versions? This thread, for example: --

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 25 Feb 2019, at 19:20, Sven Axelsson wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Hans Åberg wrote: > >> All stuff is already in MacPorts, it seems... > > Yes, I suppose the best thing to do is to make it easy for people to build > Lilypond themselves using MacPorts or Homebrew. I have

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Hans Åberg wrote: > > All stuff is already in MacPorts, it seems... > Yes, I suppose the best thing to do is to make it easy for people to build Lilypond themselves using MacPorts or Homebrew. Lilypond was removed from Homebrew a few years ago when they stopped

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 25 Feb 2019, at 17:23, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > So I think one possibility in providing a functional lilypond 64-bit > executable for OSX is to only provide a command-line version, with a pointer > to use it with Frescobaldi. Not ideal, but perhaps better than saying "build > your

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/25/19, 5:23 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" wrote: Karlin High writes: > I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be > built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people, > and probably the best result for

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/25/19, 5:23 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" wrote: Karlin High writes: > I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be > built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people, > and probably the best result for

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/25/2019 6:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote: That's why I suggested looking what is available for Darwin (I think OpenDarwin at some point of time closed shop but that was some time ago and I haven't followed developments). It seems OpenDarwin's been gone since 2006.

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be > built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people, > and probably the best result for macOS users. The question was not whether this was the best way but whether it was at all legal.

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/24/2019 5:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Hans Åberg writes: Xcode license: https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf Well, I think that one is pretty clear: 2.5 Copies [...] For clarity, You may copy only the entire package or piece of the Apple Software and

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Carl Sorensen writes: > On 2/24/19, 12:47 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" > d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > If libraries with incompatible license would require to be linked, it > means "nothing" in the sense of "there is nothing we can offer for > MacOSX". > >

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/24/19, 12:47 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" wrote: Hans Åberg writes: >> On 24 Feb 2019, at 19:28, Karlin High wrote: >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 AM Hans Åberg wrote: >> >> > On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen wrote: >> >

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 25 Feb 2019, at 01:04, David Kastrup wrote: > >>> So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB. >>> It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX >>> packagers/versions altogether. >> >> US copyright law makes an exception for computer

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 25 Feb 2019, at 01:04, Karlin High wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:48 PM Hans Åberg wrote: > > > On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:10, David Kastrup wrote: > > > So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB. > > It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:10, David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> Xcode license: >>> https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf >> >> Well, I think that one is pretty clear: >> >>2.5 >>Copies >> >>[...] For clarity, You may copy only the entire package or piece of

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:48 PM Hans Åberg wrote: > > > On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:10, David Kastrup wrote: > > > So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB. > > It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX > > packagers/versions altogether. > > But

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:10, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Xcode license: >> https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf > > Well, I think that one is pretty clear: > >2.5 >Copies > >[...] For clarity, You may copy only the entire package or piece of >the Apple Software and

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 24 Feb 2019, at 21:39, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 24 Feb 2019, at 20:47, David Kastrup wrote: >> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage >> rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 24 Feb 2019, at 21:39, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 20:47, David Kastrup wrote: >>> > Are there any other considerations here related to software usage > rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide > an overview

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 24 Feb 2019, at 20:47, David Kastrup wrote: >> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide an overview of what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 24 Feb 2019, at 20:47, David Kastrup wrote: > >>> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage >>> rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide >>> an overview of what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS >>> effort? >> >> Nothing, I

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 24 Feb 2019, at 19:28, Karlin High wrote: >> >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 AM Hans Åberg wrote: >> >> > On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen wrote: >> > >> > Still needs to download the SDK from Apple: >> > >> >

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 24 Feb 2019, at 19:28, Karlin High wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 AM Hans Åberg wrote: > > > On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > > > Still needs to download the SDK from Apple: > > > > https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk > > They are

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 AM Hans Åberg wrote: > > > On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > > > Still needs to download the SDK from Apple: > > > > https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk > > They are listed at > https://developer.apple.com/download/more/ > One

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > Still needs to download the SDK from Apple: > > https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk They are listed at https://developer.apple.com/download/more/ One needs to have an account and log in. Mentioned at the bottom at

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 2/23/19, 5:13 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Hans Åberg" > haber...@telia.com> wrote: > >Found this, which is for 10.6: >https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/x86_64-apple-darwin-sdk/ > > Still needs to download the SDK from

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On Feb 23, 2019, at 5:11 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > I have no idea how best to go after creating an OSX 64-bit binary in gub. I > think we can neither provide the Xcode binaries nor find a link that will > allow gub to download the binaries. It may be that the only way forward on > OSX

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/19, 5:13 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Hans Åberg" wrote: > On 23 Feb 2019, at 22:26, Karlin High wrote: > > Full quote: > > " > we use GUB (see ) to build binaries, not Xcode. We link

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 23 Feb 2019, at 22:26, Karlin High wrote: > > Full quote: > > " > we use GUB (see ) to > build binaries, not Xcode. We link against > > > > which is based on

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/19, 3:34 PM, "Karlin High" wrote: On 2/23/2019 4:11 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > I have no idea how best to go after creating an OSX 64-bit binary in gub. I think we can neither provide the Xcode binaries nor find a link that will allow gub to download the binaries.

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/2019 4:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote: I was not able to figure out whether we or anybody else even can legally distribute our MacOSX binaries. If we can figure that out for a newer version, we certainly should do so rather than relying on having done everything right in the past. After

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > On 2/23/2019 4:11 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: >> I have no idea how best to go after creating an OSX 64-bit binary in >> gub. I think we can neither provide the Xcode binaries nor find a >> link that will allow gub to download the binaries. > > In research, I've found about

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/2019 4:11 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: I have no idea how best to go after creating an OSX 64-bit binary in gub. I think we can neither provide the Xcode binaries nor find a link that will allow gub to download the binaries. In research, I've found about 12 different links with info on

  1   2   >