Chris Yate <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Phil, > > Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but that > it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a > better solution.
If you can find _any_ free software project requiring a number of free software compile- and runtime dependencies that does not invest a really big amount of time into maintaining a separate Windows port, you might want to look how they are doing it. But in my experience, stuff like Git are typical: the Windows port lags several versions behind, is separately maintained with a lot of effort by separate volunteers (who get rather gruff over time), and is of mixed quality. In contrast, the LilyPond Windows releases appear at the same time as other releases and require no extra manual effort (until things go wrong, of course). That's pretty good, actually. Not being able to do native/online compilations by anybody wanting to is bad. Yes. Fixes to GUB (possibly even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it already) are of course welcome: we have pretty low active expertise on its innards on the list, and those who use it for building releases mostly drive on autopilot. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
