Chris Yate <chrisy...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> Chris Yate <chrisy...@gmail.com> 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.
LilyPond and its utilities use C++, Guile (both as standalone executable and as one of _many_ libraries), Ghostscript, Python, Shell scripts and probably a few other things. C++ alone is not all that hard, except that it does not buy you an installer. > 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. Maybe, maybe not, but it adds up. That's what I meant with "a number of free software compile- and runtime dependencies". > 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. It may well be possible, but I don't really know myself where to get a good roadmap. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
