Hello,
Hans Aberg wrote:
On 7 Mar 2010, at 08:12, James Bailey wrote:
Currently, the instructions on getting LilyPond up and running in a
terminal on mac osx have the user create a script which calls the
lilypond application, and then add the location of the script to the
$PATH. Is there any advantage of this over just having the user add
the location of the lilypond binary to the $PATH?
They are different: LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/ has other stuff
in it than just the lilypond programs, for example ps2pdf. If one adds
this location to the environment variable PATH, one must decide which
version of these to call.
From a user's point of view why is it done like this? Why have two
'bin' locations and not just put it all in
LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/
But one could add /usr/local/bin/ before the
Lilypond directory. In addition, I have paths to MacPorts /opt/, Fink
/sw/, and TeX-Live /usr/local/texlive/ TeX.
After my problems with getting Mac OS to work in Terminal (I just needed
to RTFM) I noticed that I had a .profile in my own account, now I know
that default users (admin or otherwise) do not have a .profile so I must
have created it and when I looked at it I noticed that I HAD RTFM'd the
manual because there was a
/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/bin/ but no
"$@" at the end.
which is why I could run the command but probably why I got a segfault
when running it explicitly and as if no file was put as the argument
without the explicit path (when I had my ~/bin set).
however I noticed that when I did an echo $PATH to see if what I had
done was working, I noticed that I had a path to Macports. Now I KNOW
that I wouldn't have added that, so I wondered as the installer is just
a zip file where we drag and drop the .app to the location we want it if
LilyPond adds any $PATH statement when we run it for the first time?
James
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
