> What to do? Maybe we should just change the 'do not compile' attitude > a bit, and have 'supported' development platforms with a detailed > recipe to compile lily. The contributers of binary releases should > make sure that the recipe stays up to date. Would this work?
I'd like that attitude change. Lilypond is not -that- hard to compile -- it's easier than Mozilla, easier than GNOME, easier than TeX itself. The dependencies are not well documented in the docs, but the recipe itself isn't too hard (I have it in .spec form for making RPMs for the PLD distribution) -- once you get the prerequisites, the rest fairly flies, especially if you're ignoring packaging issues. I'd rather have docs on how to make it work right, rather than saying "don't try". That way, you'll get comments on how to improve it. Ari _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
