On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Thanks David. If the answer to my question is "no, there's no other way", that's still a useful answer! :) To be fair, I think the projects that do work across many systems are usually not using C++, but some other language that's more portable. Probably something interpreted, or running on a VM. And of course, Lilypond has a bunch of dependencies, TexMf, Guile and the like, which may be more of a portability problem than /our/ code. 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. Agreed! 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 GUB is a really good idea. But obviously it's not great having to compile the whole thing to change a source repository... If its authors followed the mentality of Gnu autoconf tools, you'd expect to be able to pass some arguments in. I'll look into it a little. Chris
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
