Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: > Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2020, 18:26 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > I don't want to digress into this topic right now (P.S. the reply got >> > longer than I initially anticipated), but the scripts have a much >> > narrower focus: they mostly compile native binaries (except for >> > Windows via mingw) instead of cross-compiling for all targets. In my >> > experience from helping with GUB in the past year, that's the main >> > source of complexity for usage and maintenance. Moreover, this choice >> > also outright prevents 64-bit executables for macOS because of Apple's >> > restrictions with regard to their toolchain. >> > >> > I'm open to reconsider the choice of sh-scripts, but GUB aims at doing >> > just too much (a package manager for building arbitrary packages for >> > various targets; where we only do LilyPond to a handful) by using a >> > too powerful language and architecture (Python 2 with dynamic >> > dependency resolution and generic interfaces to various build >> > systems). I think we should learn from that and choose a design that >> > avoids the pitfalls. >> >> To be fair, GUB could have become a significant part of the GNU compiler >> toolchain which would have vindicated its complexity, and at one point >> of time it was more or less intended for that. >> >> I have not pushed it in that direction since I never was able to get >> dependable information about the legal status of our MacOSX port's >> toolkit. While it was clear that the conditions of the 64bit toolkit >> precluded its use, the respective conditions for the 32bit kit we used >> just were no longer to be found and it was not overly clear just what >> version was involved here. If this would have been replaced by some >> OpenDarwin components (but we had nobody to work on that, partly a >> hen-and-egg problem), this might have been different. >> >> And with the basic "let's not look too closely here" status of the >> MacOSX toolkit, extending its reach would have been asking others to >> embrace the potential trouble that we were in ourselves. > > For my own reading pleasure, do you have links where this was > discussed? I mean, I don't see your name in the GUB repo so I'm not > sure what "I have not pushed it" means.
That would not be in the GUB repo but in GNU's internal discussion lists. There were a few sort-of discussions/attempts on the lilypond-devel list to clear things up without conclusive results. -- David Kastrup
