subject:"64\-bit version of Lilypond\?"


> On 14 Mar 2019, at 21:16, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg  writes:
> 
>>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sigh.  This discussion stated that they aren't distributing the
>>> documentation.  Of course distributing the PDF without corresponding
>>> source code would not be appropriate,
>> 
>> Please explain.
> 
> I don't see that anything I say makes any sense to you, and vice versa.
> The whole point of the GPL is that any generated/compiled stuff has to
> be accompanied by its source code.

That is not what the paragraph say, and be provided independently on any of 
those forms. 

>>> ...but so far I haven't read anything
>>> that doesn't instead suggest that they are distributing the source code
>>> of the PDF without distributing the PDF because they have not met the
>>> dependencies for building the PDF.
>> 
>> That could possibly be done too.
>> 
>>> Which is the complete opposite.
>> 
>> But including the PDF would be more appropriate.
> 
> It would be more desirable.  The GPL does not demand it.  As long as you
> don't deliver the documentation in compiled form, it's your choice
> whether you make the source available or not.

Just make it available in any of those forms.

 MacPorts admits making an independent binary installer from the
 distribution and one can choose what dependencies should be
 included, and also its install location.
>>> 
>>> Which has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the topic of
>>> including the documentation.  Or access to the source code.
>> 
>> Why do you think so?
> 
> What does the install location have to do with including documentation
> or access to the source code?

The stuff is merged, so you can have different installers if you so like.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>> Hans Åberg  writes:
>> 
 On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup  wrote:
 
 The passage in question reads
 
 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
 
 You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
 of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
 machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
 in one of these ways:
>>> 
>>> So possibly you have an objection distributing the PDF without its
>>> source code under those forms together with the source code of the
>>> program!?
>> 
>> Sigh.  This discussion stated that they aren't distributing the
>> documentation.  Of course distributing the PDF without corresponding
>> source code would not be appropriate,
>
> Please explain.

I don't see that anything I say makes any sense to you, and vice versa.
The whole point of the GPL is that any generated/compiled stuff has to
be accompanied by its source code.

>> ...but so far I haven't read anything
>> that doesn't instead suggest that they are distributing the source code
>> of the PDF without distributing the PDF because they have not met the
>> dependencies for building the PDF.
>
> That could possibly be done too.
>
>> Which is the complete opposite.
>
> But including the PDF would be more appropriate.

It would be more desirable.  The GPL does not demand it.  As long as you
don't deliver the documentation in compiled form, it's your choice
whether you make the source available or not.

>>> MacPorts admits making an independent binary installer from the
>>> distribution and one can choose what dependencies should be
>>> included, and also its install location.
>> 
>> Which has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the topic of
>> including the documentation.  Or access to the source code.
>
> Why do you think so?

What does the install location have to do with including documentation
or access to the source code?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


> On 14 Mar 2019, at 19:32, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg  writes:
> 
>>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The passage in question reads
>>> 
>>> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
>>> 
>>> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
>>> of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
>>> machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
>>> in one of these ways:
>> 
>> So possibly you have an objection distributing the PDF without its
>> source code under those forms together with the source code of the
>> program!?
> 
> Sigh.  This discussion stated that they aren't distributing the
> documentation.  Of course distributing the PDF without corresponding
> source code would not be appropriate,

Please explain.

> ...but so far I haven't read anything
> that doesn't instead suggest that they are distributing the source code
> of the PDF without distributing the PDF because they have not met the
> dependencies for building the PDF.

That could possibly be done too.

> Which is the complete opposite.

But including the PDF would be more appropriate. 

>> MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and
>> the binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without
>> the stuff required to build it.
> 
> Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being
> completely absent.  Which is legitimate but unfortunate.
 
 There are various possibilities.
>>> 
>>> Usually an applicable truism even if I have no clue what you are
>>> referring to here.
>> 
>> MacPorts admits making an independent binary installer from the
>> distribution and one can choose what dependencies should be included,
>> and also its install location.
> 
> Which has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the topic of
> including the documentation.  Or access to the source code.

Why do you think so?



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>> The passage in question reads
>> 
>>  6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
>> 
>>  You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
>> of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
>> machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
>> in one of these ways:
>
> So possibly you have an objection distributing the PDF without its
> source code under those forms together with the source code of the
> program!?

Sigh.  This discussion stated that they aren't distributing the
documentation.  Of course distributing the PDF without corresponding
source code would not be appropriate, but so far I haven't read anything
that doesn't instead suggest that they are distributing the source code
of the PDF without distributing the PDF because they have not met the
dependencies for building the PDF.

Which is the complete opposite.

> MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and
> the binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without
> the stuff required to build it.

 Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being
 completely absent.  Which is legitimate but unfortunate.
>>> 
>>> There are various possibilities.
>> 
>> Usually an applicable truism even if I have no clue what you are
>> referring to here.
>
> MacPorts admits making an independent binary installer from the
> distribution and one can choose what dependencies should be included,
> and also its install location.

Which has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the topic of
including the documentation.  Or access to the source code.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?



> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:25, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> The passage in question reads
> 
>  6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
> 
>  You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
> of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
> machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
> in one of these ways:

So possibly you have an objection distributing the PDF without its source code 
under those forms together with the source code of the program!?

 MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and
 the binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without
 the stuff required to build it.
>>> 
>>> Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being
>>> completely absent.  Which is legitimate but unfortunate.
>> 
>> There are various possibilities.
> 
> Usually an applicable truism even if I have no clue what you are
> referring to here.

MacPorts admits making an independent binary installer from the distribution 
and one can choose what dependencies should be included, and also its install 
location.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 17:00, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>> Hans Åberg  writes:
>> 
 Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
 but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
 everything you distribute.
>>> 
>>> I think it suffices to have it provided, not necessarily in a specific
>>> main distribution. These days, Internet should suffice.
>> 
>> It doesn't matter what you think when the conditions are spelled out
>> clearly in the GPL.
>
> It doesn't matter what you think it says if you don't interpret it
> properly.

The "proper" interpretation is determined by the courts.  The passage in
question reads

  6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

  You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:

a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
customarily used for software interchange.

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
written offer to provide the Corresponding Source.  This
alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
with subsection 6b.

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge.  You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code.  If the place to
copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
Corresponding Source.  Regardless of what server hosts the
Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
charge under subsection 6d.

>>> MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and
>>> the binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without
>>> the stuff required to build it.
>> 
>> Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being
>> completely absent.  Which is legitimate but unfortunate.
>
> There are various possibilities.

Usually an applicable truism even if I have no clue what you are
referring to here.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


> On 14 Mar 2019, at 17:00, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg  writes:
> 
>>> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
>>> but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
>>> everything you distribute.
>> 
>> I think it suffices to have it provided, not necessarily in a specific
>> main distribution. These days, Internet should suffice.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think when the conditions are spelled out
> clearly in the GPL.

It doesn't matter what you think it says if you don't interpret it properly.

>> MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and the
>> binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without the
>> stuff required to build it.
> 
> Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being
> completely absent.  Which is legitimate but unfortunate.

There are various possibilities.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>> Werner LEMBERG  writes:
>> 
> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
 
 Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration
 one has to make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'.  It
 would be nice to have it, so one does not have to go to the site and
 download it by hand.  With MacPorts, one would get it all
 automatically when updating the packages.
>>> 
>>> Well, building the documentation is not trivial.  It is certainly
>>> doable within MacPorts; however, the Portfile isn't set up for that,
>>> and I guess it would add a lot of additional dependencies.
>> 
>> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
>> but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
>> everything you distribute.
>
> I think it suffices to have it provided, not necessarily in a specific
> main distribution. These days, Internet should suffice.

It doesn't matter what you think when the conditions are spelled out
clearly in the GPL.

> MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and the
> binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without the
> stuff required to build it.

Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being
completely absent.  Which is legitimate but unfortunate.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Werner LEMBERG  writes:
> 
 IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
 getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
 re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration
>>> one has to make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'.  It
>>> would be nice to have it, so one does not have to go to the site and
>>> download it by hand.  With MacPorts, one would get it all
>>> automatically when updating the packages.
>> 
>> Well, building the documentation is not trivial.  It is certainly
>> doable within MacPorts; however, the Portfile isn't set up for that,
>> and I guess it would add a lot of additional dependencies.
> 
> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
> but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
> everything you distribute.

I think it suffices to have it provided, not necessarily in a specific main 
distribution. These days, Internet should suffice.

MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and the binary 
installer, so the latter can have just the docs without the stuff required to 
build it.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Werner LEMBERG  writes:

>>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
>>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
>>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
>> 
>> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration
>> one has to make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'.  It
>> would be nice to have it, so one does not have to go to the site and
>> download it by hand.  With MacPorts, one would get it all
>> automatically when updating the packages.
>
> Well, building the documentation is not trivial.  It is certainly
> doable within MacPorts; however, the Portfile isn't set up for that,
> and I guess it would add a lot of additional dependencies.

Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
everything you distribute.  Not for everything that we'd wish to get
distributed or for scripts that we'd want to exist but that don't.  So
there is no GPL angle to getting that situation improved.  It's work
that hasn't been done, not work that is being withheld in spite of its
products getting distributed.

So legally, this situation can persist arbitrarily long.  If someone
wants to help the MacPorts people fixing it, that might make a
difference.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-14 Thread Werner LEMBERG

>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
> 
> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration
> one has to make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'.  It
> would be nice to have it, so one does not have to go to the site and
> download it by hand.  With MacPorts, one would get it all
> automatically when updating the packages.

Well, building the documentation is not trivial.  It is certainly
doable within MacPorts; however, the Portfile isn't set up for that,
and I guess it would add a lot of additional dependencies.


Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 12:50, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
>>> https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages
>> 
>> Also, the MacPorts does not install any documentation, it seems.
> 
> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.

Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration one has to 
make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'. It would be nice to have it, 
so one does not have to go to the site and download it by hand. With MacPorts, 
one would get it all automatically when updating the packages.

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-14 Thread Werner LEMBERG

>>  
>> https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages
> 
> Also, the MacPorts does not install any documentation, it seems.

IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.


Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-11 Thread Hans Åberg



> On 9 Mar 2019, at 08:40, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
> I've just remembered that the MacPorts man page of the `port'
> packaging manager shows the following.
> 
>  PACKAGING ACTIONS
>There are also actions for producing installable packages of
>ports:
> 
>mdmg
>Creates an Internet-enabled disk image containing a macOS
>metapackage of portname and its dependencies.
> 
> See also
> 
>  
> https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages

One can also set custom locations for the binaries and any eventual apps. For 
the record, I did the below intended for lilypond-2.19, with the extra MacPorts 
and binaries in /usr/local/lilypond-2.19 and apps in 
/Applications/LilyPond-2.19. As it is rather large, I did not do the 
'/usr/local/lilypond-2.19/bin/port install lilypond-devel'.

Also, the MacPorts does not install any documentation, it seems.

>From [1]:

curl -O https://distfiles.macports.org/MacPorts/MacPorts-2.5.4.tar.bz2
tar xf MacPorts-2.5.4.tar.bz2
cd MacPorts-2.5.4/
./configure --prefix=/usr/local/lilypond-2.19 
--with-applications-dir=/Applications/LilyPond-2.19 --without-startupitems
make
sudo make install

1. 
https://guide.macports.org/chunked/installing.macports.html#installing.macports.source.multiple



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-11 Thread Flaming Hakama by Elaine

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:50 AM Jacques Menu  wrote:

> Hello Elaine,
>
> I use Frescobaldi 2.20.0 quite often on my Mac, and it escaped me that
> 3.x.y is available on other platforms…
>
> I can contribute building it and LilyPond on Mac OS X if needed.
>
> JM
>

I would certainly appreciate being able to try the latest version of
Frescobaldi on mac, thanks!

For the purposes of this thread, I also wanted to ask, the reason
Frescobaldi can provide a mac binary but not Lilypond is that Frescobaldi
is all python, but Lilypond also requires C?  Or is it because the Lilypond
build is done through GUB?

Thanks,

Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-10 Thread Jacques Menu

Hello Elaine,

I use Frescobaldi 2.20.0 quite often on my Mac, and it escaped me that 3.x.y is 
available on other platforms…

I can contribute building it and LilyPond on Mac OS X if needed.

JM

> Le 9 mars 2019 à 22:08, Flaming Hakama by Elaine  a 
> écrit :
> 
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:34 PM Kieren MacMillan <
> kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> In fact, one of the reasons I have not tried Frescobaldi is that you need
>>> to use a package manager to install it, and download the developer tools
>>> (XCode).
>> 
>> You do? I just download the binary and run it…
>> 
>> Kieren.
>> 
>> 
>> Kieren MacMillan, composer
>> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
>> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Frescobaldi download page
> http://frescobaldi.org/download.html
> 
> For Mac OS X DMG disk images are provided, containing an application bundle
> that you can drag and drop in your Applications folder. 64 bit and 32 bit
> versions are provided (the "Frescobaldi-2.x.x-x86_64.dmg" and
> "Frescobaldi-2.x.x-i386.dmg" files, respectively).
> 
> I see from the linked repo
> https://github.com/frescobaldi/frescobaldi/releases
> that this support is only for 2.x, and while 3.0 has been out for 2 years,
> there is no dmg app bundle for 3.0.
> 
> Are there plans for a mac version of 3.0?  Is it just lack of popularity,
> or is there a reason why support has stopped?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Elaine Alt
> 415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
> highly underrated*"
> ela...@flaminghakama.com
> Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> ___
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-09 Thread Flaming Hakama by Elaine

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:34 PM Kieren MacMillan <
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > In fact, one of the reasons I have not tried Frescobaldi is that you need
> > to use a package manager to install it, and download the developer tools
> > (XCode).
>
> You do? I just download the binary and run it…
>
> Kieren.
> 
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info

According to the Frescobaldi download page
http://frescobaldi.org/download.html

For Mac OS X DMG disk images are provided, containing an application bundle
that you can drag and drop in your Applications folder. 64 bit and 32 bit
versions are provided (the "Frescobaldi-2.x.x-x86_64.dmg" and
"Frescobaldi-2.x.x-i386.dmg" files, respectively).

I see from the linked repo
https://github.com/frescobaldi/frescobaldi/releases
that this support is only for 2.x, and while 3.0 has been out for 2 years,
there is no dmg app bundle for 3.0.

Are there plans for a mac version of 3.0?  Is it just lack of popularity,
or is there a reason why support has stopped?

Thanks,

Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-09 Thread Hans Åberg



> On 9 Mar 2019, at 18:32, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for testing it!

You are welcome!

>> I made a standalone version using 'port mdmg lilypond-devel' which
>> results in a lilypond-devel-2.19.82_4.dmg, on MacOS 10.13.6, and it
>> is working after installing: I moved my /opt/ out of way, and it
>> gets installed in a new directory /opt/. It is rather large though
>> 1.86 GB compared to the LilyPond app, which is less than 100 MB.
> 
> Ouch, this is far too huge.  Please send the (compressed) `ls -lR'
> output of dmg's `/opt/' tree for a closer inspection.

Too late! Removed, as I had to use my regular /opt/. But you can get the 
installer if you so like. It is probably so large because it just selects whole 
packages like texlive. But one can refine:
  https://trac.macports.org/wiki/TeXLivePackages

>> The first time I ran the command above, I got an error (below), but
>> running it again created the distribution.
> 
>> Error: Failed to mpkg lilypond-devel: invalid command name ""
>> Error: See /opt/local/var/macports/logs/
>>   
>> _opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_textproc_lilypond-devel/
>>   lilypond-devel/main.log
>> for details.
> 
> And what does this log file say?

It is overwritten on the second successful run, but it didn't give any extra 
info.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-09 Thread Werner LEMBERG



Thanks for testing it!

> I made a standalone version using 'port mdmg lilypond-devel' which
> results in a lilypond-devel-2.19.82_4.dmg, on MacOS 10.13.6, and it
> is working after installing: I moved my /opt/ out of way, and it
> gets installed in a new directory /opt/. It is rather large though
> 1.86 GB compared to the LilyPond app, which is less than 100 MB.

Ouch, this is far too huge.  Please send the (compressed) `ls -lR'
output of dmg's `/opt/' tree for a closer inspection.

> The first time I ran the command above, I got an error (below), but
> running it again created the distribution.

> Error: Failed to mpkg lilypond-devel: invalid command name ""
> Error: See /opt/local/var/macports/logs/
>
> _opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_textproc_lilypond-devel/
>lilypond-devel/main.log
> for details.

And what does this log file say?


Werner

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-09 Thread Hans Åberg


> On 9 Mar 2019, at 08:40, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
> I've just remembered that the MacPorts man page of the `port'
> packaging manager shows the following.
> 
>  PACKAGING ACTIONS
>There are also actions for producing installable packages of
>ports:
> ...
>mdmg
>Creates an Internet-enabled disk image containing a macOS
>metapackage of portname and its dependencies.
> 
> See also
> 
>  
> https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages
> 
> for more details.
> 
> I haven't tried this (and I probably won't in the very near future due
> to time constraints – on my macOS 10.7.5 I have to compile everything
> manually and can't download the ready-to-run packages from MacPorts
> hosts), but perhaps one of those commands could be used to create
> distributable, stand-alone versions of the command line version of
> LilyPond for various macOS versions.

I made a standalone version using 'port mdmg lilypond-devel' which results in a 
lilypond-devel-2.19.82_4.dmg, on MacOS 10.13.6, and it is working after 
installing: I moved my /opt/ out of way, and it gets installed in a new 
directory /opt/. It is rather large though 1.86 GB compared to the LilyPond 
app, which is less than 100 MB.

The first time I ran the command above, I got an error (below), but running it 
again created the distribution.

--
--->  Creating pkg for libzzip version 0_0.13.69_0 at 
/opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_textproc_lilypond-devel/lilypond-devel/work/mpkg_packages/libzzip-0.13.69.pkg
Error: Failed to mpkg lilypond-devel: invalid command name ""
Error: See 
/opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_textproc_lilypond-devel/lilypond-devel/main.log
 for details.
Error: Follow https://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets to report a bug.
Error: Processing of port lilypond-devel failed
--



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-09 Thread Karlin High


On 3/8/2019 12:34 PM, Jacques Menu wrote:

The English version link at the bottom left leads to a 404.


Archive.org to the rescue.


--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-09 Thread Federico Bruni

Il giorno ven 8 mar 2019 alle 19:14, Hans =?iso-8859-1?b?xWJlcmc=?= 
 ha scritto:
I think too that it might be better to switch to say Frescobaldi as 
the official LilyPond editor if you need one, though I haven't used 
it. Their site is only in Dutch from what I could see, which might be 
a turnoff.


I was working on a new website last month, but I got sidetracked by 
work and private life...

Hopefully I'll finalize it in the near future.




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-09 Thread Federico Bruni

Il giorno ven 8 mar 2019 alle 22:16, David Kastrup  ha 
scritto:

 If I remember correctly,
Frescobaldi can download and install official LilyPond versions.  If
that's also the case in MacOSX, that would be a strong reason to try
providing a no-GUI LilyPond installation for Darwin.


This was possible in Frescobaldi 1.x and only for Linux.

There's an open issue here:
https://github.com/frescobaldi/frescobaldi/issues/313




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-09 Thread Hans Åberg


> On 9 Mar 2019, at 08:40, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
> I've just remembered that the MacPorts man page of the `port'
> packaging manager shows the following.
...
> I haven't tried this (and I probably won't in the very near future due
> to time constraints – on my macOS 10.7.5 I have to compile everything
> manually and can't download the ready-to-run packages from MacPorts
> hosts), but perhaps one of those commands could be used to create
> distributable, stand-alone versions of the command line version of
> LilyPond for various macOS versions.

I made one just to test: 'sudo port mdmg xz' resulting in xz-5.2.4.dmg. My 
guess it unpacks in /opt/. For the record, it ended up in 
/opt//local/var/macports/build/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_archivers_xz/xz/work/xz-5.2.4.dmg



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Werner LEMBERG


>> The lilypond-devel version [of MacPorts] lists gcc8 as a library
>> dependency,
> 
> This is because lilypond can only be compiled with gcc and not with
> clang, contrary to most other software of MacPorts.  The compiler
> whitelist of the `lilypond-devel' Portfile starts with gcc8;
> however, it will compile with all gcc versions >= 4.7.

I've just remembered that the MacPorts man page of the `port'
packaging manager shows the following.

  PACKAGING ACTIONS
There are also actions for producing installable packages of
ports:

pkg
Creates a macOS installer package of portname.

mpkg
Creates a macOS installer metapackage of portname and its
dependencies.

dmg
Creates an Internet-enabled disk image containing a macOS
package of portname.

mdmg
Creates an Internet-enabled disk image containing a macOS
metapackage of portname and its dependencies.

See also

  
https://guide.macports.org/chunked/using.binaries.html#using.binaries.binary-packages

for more details.

I haven't tried this (and I probably won't in the very near future due
to time constraints – on my macOS 10.7.5 I have to compile everything
manually and can't download the ready-to-run packages from MacPorts
hosts), but perhaps one of those commands could be used to create
distributable, stand-alone versions of the command line version of
LilyPond for various macOS versions.


Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Flaming Hakama by Elaine

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kieren MacMillan <
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Flaming Hakama by Elaine <
> ela...@flaminghakama.com> wrote:
> > However, to be clear, if you are basing this suggestion on being able to
> > install it via Fescobaldi, I'll reiterate the point that it takes way
> more
> > time and hassle to set that up on a mac, since you have to register with
> > Apple, then download and install XCode, then install a package manager
> and
> > install Frescobaldi.  Then use that to install Lilypond.
>
> I’m confused… Why am I able to run Frescobaldi and Lilypond without having
> ever done any of that? I download the binaries from the two websites and
> I’m off and running.
>
> Thanks for any clarification you can give!
> Kieren.
> 
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
>
>
Hmmm, maybe I just didn't know how to do it the easy way.
Lilypond has always been easy, it's just Frescobaldi that I recall needing
those steps.

Perhaps I should try it again and report back...


Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hi all,

On Mar 8, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Flaming Hakama by Elaine  
wrote:
> However, to be clear, if you are basing this suggestion on being able to
> install it via Fescobaldi, I'll reiterate the point that it takes way more
> time and hassle to set that up on a mac, since you have to register with
> Apple, then download and install XCode, then install a package manager and
> install Frescobaldi.  Then use that to install Lilypond.

I’m confused… Why am I able to run Frescobaldi and Lilypond without having ever 
done any of that? I download the binaries from the two websites and I’m off and 
running.

Thanks for any clarification you can give!
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hi,

> In fact, one of the reasons I have not tried Frescobaldi is that you need
> to use a package manager to install it, and download the developer tools
> (XCode).

You do? I just download the binary and run it…

Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Flaming Hakama by Elaine

>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: David Kastrup 
> To: Flaming Hakama by Elaine 
> Cc: lilypond-devel 
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 22:16:37 +0100
> Subject: Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:
>
> > So, I think the long-term value of Lilypad to the potential user base
> > (on mac or even other platforms) is close to zero.  In the short term,
> > the main downside would be specifically regarding recruiting new users
> > by providing an immediate "working" install.
>
> I've seen reviews of LilyPond lambasting it because clicking the
> application does nothing.
>
> LilyPad helps against that but I am not sure whether we'll entertain
> people's attention span long enough to actually become a user of
> LilyPond when this was a roadblock.

My hot take:  if this is a roadblock, you're probably not going to warm up
to Lilypond.

> If I remember correctly,
> Frescobaldi can download and install official LilyPond versions.  If
> that's also the case in MacOSX, that would be a strong reason to try
> providing a no-GUI LilyPond installation for Darwin.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>

I agree that a no-GUI installation for Darwin would be great, and I suspect
it would be enough for the vast majority mac users of Lilypond.

However, to be clear, if you are basing this suggestion on being able to
install it via Fescobaldi, I'll reiterate the point that it takes way more
time and hassle to set that up on a mac, since you have to register with
Apple, then download and install XCode, then install a package manager and
install Frescobaldi.  Then use that to install Lilypond.

This is much more work than setting up the command line environment and
using the native simpletext editor, using your regular editor/IDE.

However, I would guess that shepherding new users to use Fescobaldi would
end up getting more of them to stick since I gather it is helpful or even
essential for many (if not most) Lilypond users.  But this is not a path of
convenience on mac.  So, I agree with the suggestion, if not the original
motivation.

Thanks,

Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread David Kastrup

Flaming Hakama by Elaine  writes:

> So, I think the long-term value of Lilypad to the potential user base
> (on mac or even other platforms) is close to zero.  In the short term,
> the main downside would be specifically regarding recruiting new users
> by providing an immediate "working" install.

I've seen reviews of LilyPond lambasting it because clicking the
application does nothing.

LilyPad helps against that but I am not sure whether we'll entertain
people's attention span long enough to actually become a user of
LilyPond when this was a roadblock.  If I remember correctly,
Frescobaldi can download and install official LilyPond versions.  If
that's also the case in MacOSX, that would be a strong reason to try
providing a no-GUI LilyPond installation for Darwin.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Flaming Hakama by Elaine

-- Forwarded message --
> From: Kieren MacMillan 
> To: Karlin High 
> Cc: David Kastrup , lilypond-devel ,
> "Hans Åberg" 
> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 09:50:19 -0500
> Subject: Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?
> Hi Karlin,
>
> > Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg reports
> success with this. Or is it important to have something available from
> lilypond.org?
>
> Let’s use [totally opinion-based] numbers for argument’s sake:
>
> people who would download and keep using a version from lilypond.org that
> didn’t require a second [editor] download: 100
>
> people who would download and keep using a version from lilypond.org that
> required a second [editor] download: 75
>
> people who would download and keep using a version using MacPorts: 30
>
> That is to say, I would guess we turn off at least half of our potential
> [Mac-based] user base by not having something available from lilypond.org.
> Of course, I would still use it (I have MacPorts installed for maxima and a
> number of other things), but I’m not the average Mac user.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Kieren.
> 
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
>


Context of my opinion:  I use Lilypond on a mac.  I do not use
Frescobaldi.  I use Sublime Text as my editor, but when I stared I used
emacs.

I have never used Lilypad except as part of the initial "hello, Lily"
process to validate whether the install worked.

I would image that anyone doing real work in Lilypond, who does not use
Frescobaldi (or some other front end like Denomo?) would use their typical
go-to text editor/IDE, and not Lilypad.

In fact, I wonder if anyone on this list still uses Lilypad for any reason
other than to validate installs?  (Unless I am mistaken and that Lilypad is
commonly used in conjunction with Frescobaldi.)

So, I think the long-term value of Lilypad to the potential user base (on
mac or even other platforms) is close to zero.  In the short term, the main
downside would be specifically regarding recruiting new users by providing
an immediate "working" install.

Since this short-term goal is arguably still very important, I would be
willing to work on instructions or development of a command-line howto or
script to replace the Lilypad-based "hello, Lily".

Also, regarding your thought experiment, since macs ship with an editor
called simpletext, so there would be 0 cases where someone would need to
download additional software to start using Lilypond if it required another
editor.

I do agree that requiring using macports would significantly curtail that
potential user base.

In fact, one of the reasons I have not tried Frescobaldi is that you need
to use a package manager to install it, and download the developer tools
(XCode).  While this may be ok for my development machines, on my macbook
air it isn't really as viable an option (due to disc space, as I also need
to run Logic and Cubase, etc.)


Thanks,

Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Hans Åberg


> On 8 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Jacques Menu  wrote:
> 
>> Le 8 mars 2019 à 19:14, Hans Åberg  a écrit :
>> 
>> I think too that it might be better to switch to say Frescobaldi as the 
>> official LilyPond editor if you need one, though I haven't used it. Their 
>> site is only in Dutch from what I could see, which might be a turnoff.
> 
> The English version link at the bottom left leads to a 404.

If somebody would like to make an English version, a way to speed it up might 
be to run it through a translator and then edit it up.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Hans Åberg

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 19:32, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
>> The lilypond-devel version [of MacPorts] lists gcc8 as a library
>> dependency,
> 
> This is because lilypond can only be compiled with gcc and not with
> clang, contrary to most other software of MacPorts.  The compiler
> whitelist of the `lilypond-devel' Portfile starts with gcc8; however,
> it will compile with all gcc versions >= 4.7.

I had in mind to use a later version of a gcc, as you had some problems with 
bugs in the earlier. So if you now can use gcc8, focus on that. It has C++14 as 
default, so then the stuff to detect problems with C++11 is probably not 
needed-there was none for C++17. It also supports C++17 using -std=c++17, so 
that can be tested, like for std::optional and such. It might good to get it 
compile with clang, too, as the issue seemed to hang on some rather esoteric 
use of templates, but the original from https://clang.llvm.org works fine on 
MacOS, so that it would be better than the inhouse version. Just some inputs 
from a bystander point of view.

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Jacques Menu



> Le 8 mars 2019 à 19:14, Hans Åberg  a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On 8 Mar 2019, at 15:42, Karlin High  wrote:
>> 
>> On 3/8/2019 8:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>>> So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond, and 
>>> position Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users.
>> 
>> Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg reports 
>> success with this. Or is it important to have something available from 
>> lilypond.org?
> 
> I would be good if more people try the MacPorts installation.
> 
> The lilypond-devel version lists gcc8 as a library dependency, so that speaks 
> for it, rather than trying to use XCode clang, which is not the real one, but 
> an Apple inhouse version of unknown relation to the real one, and I recall 
> you had some problems with getting it to compile with clang. The one you use 
> now I think is gcc4.2, which is the last real gcc that Apple had, in later 
> versions, this name defaults to clang.
> 
> I think too that it might be better to switch to say Frescobaldi as the 
> official LilyPond editor if you need one, though I haven't used it. Their 
> site is only in Dutch from what I could see, which might be a turnoff.
> 

The English version link at the bottom left leads to a 404.

JM


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Werner LEMBERG



> The lilypond-devel version [of MacPorts] lists gcc8 as a library
> dependency,

This is because lilypond can only be compiled with gcc and not with
clang, contrary to most other software of MacPorts.  The compiler
whitelist of the `lilypond-devel' Portfile starts with gcc8; however,
it will compile with all gcc versions >= 4.7.


Werner

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Hans Åberg

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 15:42, Karlin High  wrote:
> 
> On 3/8/2019 8:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond, and 
>> position Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users.
> 
> Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg reports 
> success with this. Or is it important to have something available from 
> lilypond.org?

I would be good if more people try the MacPorts installation.

The lilypond-devel version lists gcc8 as a library dependency, so that speaks 
for it, rather than trying to use XCode clang, which is not the real one, but 
an Apple inhouse version of unknown relation to the real one, and I recall you 
had some problems with getting it to compile with clang. The one you use now I 
think is gcc4.2, which is the last real gcc that Apple had, in later versions, 
this name defaults to clang.

I think too that it might be better to switch to say Frescobaldi as the 
official LilyPond editor if you need one, though I haven't used it. Their site 
is only in Dutch from what I could see, which might be a turnoff.

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread David Kastrup

Karlin High  writes:

> On 3/8/2019 8:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond,
>> and position Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users.
>
> Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg
> reports success with this. Or is it important to have something
> available from lilypond.org?

I can't really vouch for it.  Apparently our Linux installers (do they
even include something like Lilypad and if so, does anybody use it?) are
still comparatively popular in spite of distributions providing their
own LilyPond versions.  On the other hand, I don't know whether there is
evidence of our FreeBSD installers getting used by anybody.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hi Karlin,

> Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg reports 
> success with this. Or is it important to have something available from 
> lilypond.org?

Let’s use [totally opinion-based] numbers for argument’s sake:

people who would download and keep using a version from lilypond.org that 
didn’t require a second [editor] download: 100

people who would download and keep using a version from lilypond.org that 
required a second [editor] download: 75

people who would download and keep using a version using MacPorts: 30

That is to say, I would guess we turn off at least half of our potential 
[Mac-based] user base by not having something available from lilypond.org. Of 
course, I would still use it (I have MacPorts installed for maxima and a number 
of other things), but I’m not the average Mac user.

Thoughts?

Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread Karlin High


On 3/8/2019 8:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:

So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond, and position 
Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users.


Would MacPorts installation be adequate for LilyPond? Hans Åberg reports 
success with this. Or is it important to have something available from 
lilypond.org?

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hi all,

> The other option is ditching LilyPad and doing a Darwin-only version of
> LilyPond, assuming that we can do this with suitably free components.

As someone who used LilyPad for the first decade of my Lilypond time, I totally 
understand the desire to maintain that "turnkey installation" thing… But in 
2003 (when I first took up Lilypond), I’m not sure Frescobaldi even existed — 
and it certainly wasn’t as robust and (IMO) indispensable as it is now.

So, my vote would be to try to do a Darwin-only version of Lilypond, and 
position Frescobaldi as the "default editor" for Mac users.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-08 Thread David Kastrup

Karlin High  writes:

> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM Karlin High  wrote:
>> The post has its own link
>> 
>
>
> And this, I think, is our answer:
>
> "
> john daniel
> Mar 7, 2019 12:55 PM
> (in response to K. High)
> A requirement to restrict the use of Xcode files to Apple-branded
> hardware is not a new development. You can check the Wayback Machine
> for Xcode licenses back to 2011, which have the same wording. You can
> also download old copies of Xcode and check their licenses. Out of
> curiosity, I did just that. Unfortunately, the first version of Xcode
> (2.4) that supports 64-bit code also has the Apple-branded
> restriction. I also checked Xcode versions 2.2.1 and 2.3 that include
> the 10.4 SDK. These also have the Apple-branded restriction. There is
> a stand-alone 10.4 SDK installer available for download that does not
> have this restriction. Hopefully that is the SDK that you've been
> using this whole time.

Hopefully.

> Going forward, I suggest that your project acquire a Mac or someone
> with a Mac to do builds and testing. A Mac can also do Linux and
> Windows builds.
> "

Frankly, given the option to tie our release process to Apple or stop
providing ready-made Apple installers, there is not much of a choice
here.  We have too few people able to maintain GUB anyway.  A licensing
restriction of running GUB only on Apple hardware would be in conflict
with the many GPLed third-party components of it even if we could
convince Jan to give us permission.

> There was another suggestion to contact Apple's legal team for advice
> on this, or (however unlikely) special permissions for SDK usage.
>
> Comments?

Special permissions that will not extend to using GCC from GUB for other
purposes would not allow us to redistribute GCC.

I am afraid that this is so far in Apple's GPL war zone that we cannot
skirt the topic.  We can still refer people to Apple communities doing
their own non-cross compilation.

The other option is ditching LilyPad and doing a Darwin-only version of
LilyPond, assuming that we can do this with suitably free components.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-07 Thread Karlin High

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM Karlin High  wrote:
> The post has its own link
> 

And this, I think, is our answer:

"
john daniel
Mar 7, 2019 12:55 PM
(in response to K. High)
A requirement to restrict the use of Xcode files to Apple-branded
hardware is not a new development. You can check the Wayback Machine
for Xcode licenses back to 2011, which have the same wording. You can
also download old copies of Xcode and check their licenses. Out of
curiosity, I did just that. Unfortunately, the first version of Xcode
(2.4) that supports 64-bit code also has the Apple-branded
restriction. I also checked Xcode versions 2.2.1 and 2.3 that include
the 10.4 SDK. These also have the Apple-branded restriction. There is
a stand-alone 10.4 SDK installer available for download that does not
have this restriction. Hopefully that is the SDK that you've been
using this whole time.

Going forward, I suggest that your project acquire a Mac or someone
with a Mac to do builds and testing. A Mac can also do Linux and
Windows builds.
"
There was another suggestion to contact Apple's legal team for advice
on this, or (however unlikely) special permissions for SDK usage.

Comments?
-- 
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-04 Thread Karlin High


On 3/4/2019 3:52 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

There are moderated forums without actual moderator where any message
from a non-member is effectively being discarded.  Are you "as
registered" as a newcomer may be?  If not, this may just be a forum that
has been set up (or ended up) in that kind of annoying manner.


That could be the case. I may have an email verification problem or 
something. I've reached out to Apple Developer Support.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-04 Thread David Kastrup

Karlin High  writes:

> On 2/28/2019 6:10 AM, Karlin High wrote:
>>
>> Starting discussion on Apple Developer Forum. Post is currently
>> awaiting moderation; it might appear here:
>> 
>
> Status update: still awaiting moderator approval. Maybe this is an
> unwelcome question for Apple Developer Forums. The post has its own
> link, but I do not know if it is visible to other users.

There are moderated forums without actual moderator where any message
from a non-member is effectively being discarded.  Are you "as
registered" as a newcomer may be?  If not, this may just be a forum that
has been set up (or ended up) in that kind of annoying manner.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-03-04 Thread Karlin High


On 2/28/2019 6:10 AM, Karlin High wrote:


Starting discussion on Apple Developer Forum. Post is currently awaiting 
moderation; it might appear here: 



Status update: still awaiting moderator approval. Maybe this is an 
unwelcome question for Apple Developer Forums. The post has its own 
link, but I do not know if it is visible to other users.



--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-28 Thread Karlin High


On 2/25/2019 6:09 AM, Karlin High wrote:
I'm planing to ask on the Apple Developer Forum about possibilities for 
Linux cross-compile - explaining our current situation, future options, 
and software license concerns.


Starting discussion on Apple Developer Forum. Post is currently awaiting 
moderation; it might appear here: 



"
I am doing some research and testing for the GNU LilyPond project. 
(http://lilypond.org, sheet music engraving software) This is part of an 
effort to produce a 64-bit macOS version of the software as required by 
the next macOS version; currently only 32-bit is offered. The installer 
packages for LilyPond are built using not XCode, but a cross-compiler on 
Linux (http://lilypond.org/gub/) which produces installers for Linux, 
macOS, Windows, and FreeBSD. It looks like that build system would need 
a newer version of the macOS SDK from XCode to produce a 64-bit macOS 
installer; currently it appears to use Mac OS X SDK 10.4u. And a quick 
reading of the current XCode Software Licence Agreement finds that 
Section 2.5 "Copies" does not allow for using any part of XCode on 
anything but Apple-branded hardware. I am unsure which Apple forum is 
best for further discussion on that. If this one is suitable, I'll 
continue here. Otherwise, which one should I use?

"

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-27 Thread David Kastrup

Karlin High  writes:

> On 2/26/2019 12:30 PM, Karlin High wrote:
>> the "hackintosh" and Virtual Machine possibilities
>
> I expect Apple's this uptight about using their hardware because their
> business model for macOS has income coming from hardware sales instead
> of software.

That makes little enough sense for a development environment since the
actually relevant sales are for the machines running the resulting
applications.  If people can just buy one Mac to develop software
running on 10 non-Macs, Apple hasn't gained anything worthwhile.  In
our case people are restrained from using one non-Mac to develop
software running on 10 Macs.  Using software that cannot sensibly be
offered in Apple's Appstore.

This is not as much about protecting the hardware sales model (which
definitely was the case when desktop Macs were much more relevant but
precedes this kind of Xcode license) but about keeping the walled
gardens locked up.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-27 Thread Karlin High


On 2/26/2019 12:30 PM, Karlin High wrote:

the "hackintosh" and Virtual Machine possibilities


I expect Apple's this uptight about using their hardware because their 
business model for macOS has income coming from hardware sales instead 
of software. Instructions I've seen for getting macOS running in a VM 
include adding a configuration string like this:


"ourhardworkbythesewordsguardedpleasedontsteal(c)AppleComputerInc"

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-26 Thread Karlin High


On 2/26/2019 12:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

It wouldn't allow for using XCode in any form on anything but Apple
hardware.


Oh, right. That forestalls the "hackintosh" and Virtual Machine 
possibilities. Thanks for the clarification.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-26 Thread Karlin High


On 2/26/2019 11:59 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

Aren't there any exceptions for DLLs?  On OSX, you normally don't do
statical linking...


If LilyPond was built with XCode on macOS, I expect Apple would be 
perfectly happy except for App Store.


The whole business of dissecting XCode and hauling off with an SDK 
package for GUB to use on Linux - ideally as a public download from 
lilypond.org - is what the current license forbids.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-26 Thread David Kastrup

Karlin High  writes:

> On 2/26/2019 11:59 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> Aren't there any exceptions for DLLs?  On OSX, you normally don't do
>> statical linking...
>
> If LilyPond was built with XCode on macOS,

On Apple hardware.

> I expect Apple would be perfectly happy except for App Store.
>
> The whole business of dissecting XCode and hauling off with an SDK
> package for GUB to use on Linux - ideally as a public download from
> lilypond.org - is what the current license forbids.

It wouldn't allow for using XCode in any form on anything but Apple
hardware.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-26 Thread Werner LEMBERG



>> If we link with Apple libraries, we also need to heed the licensing
>> conditions of the Apple libraries.  Do they stand for this?
> 
> I gather Apple licenses have changed over time.  Possibly older
> versions of their software were better-aligned with GNU
> expectations.  I expect this answer will have to come from someone
> who's closely followed Apple XCode and such since around the year
> 2005.

Aren't there any exceptions for DLLs?  On OSX, you normally don't do
statical linking...


   Werner

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-26 Thread Karlin High


On 2/26/2019 4:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

If we link with Apple libraries, we also need to heed the licensing
conditions of the Apple libraries.  Do they stand for this?


I gather Apple licenses have changed over time. Possibly older versions 
of their software were better-aligned with GNU expectations. I expect 
this answer will have to come from someone who's closely followed Apple 
XCode and such since around the year 2005.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-26 Thread David Kastrup

Carl Sorensen  writes:

> On 2/25/19, 5:25 PM, "Karlin High"  wrote:
>
> On 2/25/2019 10:44 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> > A further look into PureDarwin's website shows that many of the
> > Darwin utilities in fact link to closed-source Apple libraries.
> > 
> > So probably we can't even ship a command-line-only version of
> > LilyPond without having linking ability to OSX.
> 
> Now, I expect the problem with linking to closed-source Apple libraries 
> is that the GNU General Public License doesn't allow for it?
> 
> On a non-GPL operating system, interaction with closed-source, non-free 
> software can't really be avoided; where's the boundary for GPL 
> acceptability?
>
>
> Reading from the GPL FAQ, it appears that as long as the libraries are
> System Libraries (and I think the OSX SDK libraries are System
> Libraries), and the libraries are linked as part of an executable,
> it's OK:

If we link with Apple libraries, we also need to heed the licensing
conditions of the Apple libraries.  Do they stand for this?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-26 Thread Hans Åberg


> On 26 Feb 2019, at 01:19, Karlin High  wrote:
> 
> On 2/25/2019 1:22 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
>> I have just installed it, and it is 64 bit
> 
> Curious, does the 64-bit resolve the out-of-memory errors that have been 
> appearing in 32-bit versions? This thread, for example:
> 
> 

Yes, it does, with this example at least. Memory goes up to close to 4 GB.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-25 Thread Carl Sorensen

On 2/25/19, 5:25 PM, "Karlin High"  wrote:

On 2/25/2019 10:44 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> A further look into PureDarwin's website shows that many of the Darwin 
utilities in fact link to closed-source Apple libraries.
> 
> So probably we can't even ship a command-line-only version of LilyPond 
without having linking ability to OSX.

Now, I expect the problem with linking to closed-source Apple libraries 
is that the GNU General Public License doesn't allow for it?

On a non-GPL operating system, interaction with closed-source, non-free 
software can't really be avoided; where's the boundary for GPL 
acceptability?

Reading from the GPL FAQ, it appears that as long as the libraries are System 
Libraries (and I think the OSX SDK libraries are System Libraries), and the 
libraries are linked as part of an executable, it's OK:

"Can I link a GPL program with a proprietary system library? 
(#SystemLibraryException)
Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly called 
the system library exception. If the GPL-incompatible libraries you want to use 
meet the criteria for a system library, then you don't have to do anything 
special to use them; the requirement to distribute source code for the whole 
program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a linked 
executable containing them.

The criteria for what counts as a "system library" vary between different 
versions of the GPL. GPLv3 explicitly defines "System Libraries" in section 1, 
to exclude it from the definition of "Corresponding Source." GPLv2 deals with 
this issue slightly differently, near the end of section 3."

The GPL3 definition of a System Library:
"The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the 
work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major 
Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only 
to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard 
Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code 
form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component 
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on 
which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an 
object code interpreter used to run it."

On the other hand, if you are using dynamically linked libraries, you can't 
distribute them with your program:

"I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) 
and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program 
with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) runtime library permitted under the GPL? 
(#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL)

You may link your program to these libraries, and distribute the compiled 
program to others. When you do this, the runtime libraries are “System 
Libraries” as GPLv3 defines them. That means that you don't need to worry about 
including their source code with the program's Corresponding Source. GPLv2 
provides a similar exception in section 3.

You may not distribute these libraries in compiled DLL form with the program. 
To prevent unscrupulous distributors from trying to use the System Library 
exception as a loophole, the GPL says that libraries can only qualify as System 
Libraries as long as they're not distributed with the program itself. If you 
distribute the DLLs with the program, they won't be eligible for this exception 
anymore; then the only way to comply with the GPL would be to provide their 
source code, which you are unable to do.

It is possible to write free programs that only run on Windows, but it is not a 
good idea. These programs would be “trapped” by Windows, and therefore 
contribute zero to the Free World.
"

Here's a case where a library isn't a System Library:

"I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability 
libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these 
libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to obtain 
those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL permit this? (#MoneyGuzzlerInc)
There are two reasons for this. First, a general one. If we permitted company A 
to make a proprietary file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software 
linked with that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough 
to drive a truck through. This would be carte blanche for withholding the 
source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GPL-covered 
software.

Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals, so this 
consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.

More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money Guzzler 
libraries would not really be free software as we understand the term—they 
would not come with full source code that enables users to change and recompile 
the program. "

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


On 2/25/2019 10:44 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:

A further look into PureDarwin's website shows that many of the Darwin 
utilities in fact link to closed-source Apple libraries.

So probably we can't even ship a command-line-only version of LilyPond without 
having linking ability to OSX.


Now, I expect the problem with linking to closed-source Apple libraries 
is that the GNU General Public License doesn't allow for it?


On a non-GPL operating system, interaction with closed-source, non-free 
software can't really be avoided; where's the boundary for GPL 
acceptability?

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


On 2/25/2019 1:22 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:

I have just installed it, and it is 64 bit


Curious, does the 64-bit resolve the out-of-memory errors that have been 
appearing in 32-bit versions? This thread, for example:



--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-25 Thread Hans Åberg

> On 25 Feb 2019, at 19:20, Sven Axelsson  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Hans Åberg  wrote:
> 
>> All stuff is already in MacPorts, it seems...
> 
> Yes, I suppose the best thing to do is to make it easy for people to build
> Lilypond themselves using MacPorts or Homebrew.

I have just installed it, and it is 64 bit, but takes a rather long time, so 
perhaps the 32 bit build should be retained, and this could be used for the 
upcoming 64 bit only OS X.

One reason it takes a long time may be that it installs a separate TeX Live 
copy in addition to the one in /usr/local/ I already have, though a minimal 
one. 

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-25 Thread Sven Axelsson

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Hans Åberg  wrote:

>
> All stuff is already in MacPorts, it seems...
>

Yes, I suppose the best thing to do is to make it easy for people to build
Lilypond themselves using MacPorts or Homebrew. Lilypond was removed from
Homebrew a few years ago when they stopped supporting brews linking to
non-current dependencies, i.e. Guile 1.8. I guess it could be added back
again, since Homebrew now does support linking against specific versions.

If no one else wants to have a go on that, I could look into providing a
Homebrew build script. It should be possible to use the deleted brew as a
starting point.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++[>++>+++>++>++
><-]>.+..>+.>+.<<-.>>+.>.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>.<++.>>>++..>>.<.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-25 Thread Hans Åberg

> On 25 Feb 2019, at 17:23, Carl Sorensen  wrote:
> 
> So I think one possibility in providing a functional lilypond 64-bit 
> executable for OSX is to only provide a command-line version, with a pointer 
> to use it with Frescobaldi.  Not ideal, but perhaps better than saying "build 
> your own".

All stuff is already in MacPorts, it seems:

$ port info lilypond
lilypond @2.18.2_9 (textproc)
Variants: [+]docs, universal

Description:  Lilypond is a unix-based automated engraving system that 
generates beautiful sheet music from input files. Lilypond uses its own input
  format, .ly, which in many ways is similar to LaTeX. 
Lilypond can export sheet music to PDF, EPS, SVG, and PNG formats, and can also
  create MIDI files.
Homepage: http://lilypond.org/

Build Dependencies:   bison, t1utils, texi2html, pkgconfig
Library Dependencies: fontconfig, fontforge, freetype, gettext, gmp, glib2, 
ghostscript, mftrace, guile18, texinfo, pango, flex, t1utils, 
texlive-lang-cyrillic,
  texlive-metapost, dblatex, urw-fonts, libtool, 
xorg-server, python27, netpbm
Conflicts with:   lilypond-devel
Platforms:darwin
License:  GPL-3+
Maintainers:  Email: s...@macports.org, GitHub: nerdling
  Policy: openmaintainer

$ port info lilypond-devel
lilypond-devel @2.19.82_4 (textproc)
Variants: mactex, universal

Description:  Lilypond is a unix-based automated engraving system that 
generates beautiful sheet music from input files. Lilypond uses its own input
  format, .ly, which in many ways is similar to LaTeX. 
Lilypond can export sheet music to PDF, EPS, SVG, and PNG formats, and can also
  create MIDI files.
Homepage: http://lilypond.org/

Build Dependencies:   autoconf, t1utils, bison, texi2html, netpbm, pkgconfig, 
flex, fontforge, libtool
Library Dependencies: fontconfig, freetype, gettext, glib2, ghostscript, gmp, 
guile18, texinfo, pango, texlive, texlive-fonts-recommended,
  texlive-lang-cyrillic, texlive-metapost, dblatex, 
python27, urw-core35-fonts, gcc8
Conflicts with:   lilypond
Platforms:darwin
License:  GPL-3+
Maintainers:  Email: s...@macports.org, GitHub: nerdling
  Policy: openmaintainer

$ port info frescobaldi
frescobaldi @2.20.0_1 (editors, python)
Sub-ports:frescobaldi-devel, frescobaldi2
Variants: [+]app, universal

Description:  Frescobaldi is an advanced text editor to edit LilyPond 
sheet music files. Features include an integrated PDF preview and a powerful 
Score
  Wizard.
Homepage: http://www.frescobaldi.org/

Build Dependencies:   py35-setuptools, py35-py2app
Library Dependencies: python35, py35-ly
Runtime Dependencies: portmidi, py35-pyqt4, py35-poppler-qt4
Conflicts with:   frescobaldi-devel, frescobaldi2
Platforms:darwin
License:  GPL-2+
Maintainers:  Email: davide.lie...@gmail.com, GitHub: dliessi
  Policy: openmaintainer

$ port info denemo
denemo @1.2.4_1 (print, audio, x11)
Variants: csound, universal

Description:  Denemo is a unique score editor which exports notation to 
LilyPond and ABC music formats. It also acts as a frontend for Csound score
  files. Denemo is different from most graphic music 
editors; this is partly because it was created to help edit LilyPond notation 
and
  partly because of its unique design philosophy.
Homepage: http://www.denemo.org/

Build Dependencies:   intltool, pkgconfig, autoconf, automake, libtool
Library Dependencies: aubio, evince, fluidsynth, gettext, gtksourceview3, gtk3, 
guile, jack, librsvg, portaudio, portmidi, rubberband
Runtime Dependencies: qtplay
Platforms:darwin
License:  GPL-3+
Maintainers:  none

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-25 Thread Carl Sorensen

On 2/25/19, 5:23 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" 

wrote:

Karlin High  writes:

> I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be
> built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people,
> and probably the best result for macOS users.

The question was not whether this was the best way but whether it was at
all legal.  I'd certainly want us to have a MacOSX installer that just
falls out with as little per-version human effort as it and other
installers do now.  If Apple says "no" to using Xcode for that purpose,
then we cannot argue our way out of that but there may be other
development environments that we can make use of.  That's why I
suggested looking what is available for Darwin (I think OpenDarwin at
some point of time closed shop but that was some time ago and I haven't
followed developments).

A further look into PureDarwin's website shows that many of the Darwin 
utilities in fact link to closed-source Apple libraries.

https://github.com/PureDarwin/PureDarwin/wiki/Purity

For example, gettext links to CoreFoundation and pango links to 6 proprietary 
libraries.

So probably we can't even ship a command-line-only version of LilyPond without 
having linking ability to OSX.

Carl

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-25 Thread Carl Sorensen

On 2/25/19, 5:23 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"

wrote:

Karlin High writes:

> I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be
> built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people,
> and probably the best result for macOS users.

The question was not whether this was the best way but whether it was at
all legal. I'd certainly want us to have a MacOSX installer that just
falls out with as little per-version human effort as it and other
installers do now. If Apple says "no" to using Xcode for that purpose,
then we cannot argue our way out of that but there may be other
development environments that we can make use of. That's why I
suggested looking what is available for Darwin (I think OpenDarwin at
some point of time closed shop but that was some time ago and I haven't
followed developments).

I checked in with Darwin. Currently the unofficial successor to OpenDarwin
(which closed shop) is PureDarwin[1]. PureDarwin is working on an SDK, but has
no time frame for providing it.

I then hopped over to a reference provided by PureDarwin that describes the
relationship between Darwin (the command-line processor and base operating
system of OSX) and OSX[2]. Darwin *is* open source, but the other pieces of
OSX are not.

Based on my reading of this page and the porting instructions available at the
developer.apple.com website, I believe we can use the open-source version of
Darwin to create the command-line version of LilyPond. I believe that the only
reason we need to use the OSX SDK is to create the graphical front end
application in lilypond.app. Now, that is precisely what the typical Mac user
wants to see, so it would not be particularly user-friendly to distribute
lilypond without the graphical editor. But I would be surprised if any
long-term lilypond user on the Mac were using the bundled app. The bundled app
is just too basic for really getting work done.

So I think one possibility in providing a functional lilypond 64-bit executable
for OSX is to only provide a command-line version, with a pointer to use it
with Frescobaldi. Not ideal, but perhaps better than saying "build your own".

Carl

1. http://www.puredarwin.org/
2.https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/background/background.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002848-TPXREF101

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


On 2/25/2019 6:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

That's why I suggested looking what is available for Darwin (I think OpenDarwin 
at some point of time closed shop but that was some time ago and I haven't 
followed developments).


It seems OpenDarwin's been gone since 2006.



Apple does still have some open source items:



Unfortunately, the search space there changes from "an SDK bundle that 
has everything we need" to "a big list of individual components." I know 
too little about both macOS and Linux development to know what things to 
look for. My efforts here are mostly limited to research and testing.


Here's cctools, which has the packages ar, as, and ld which I gather are 
significant somehow.




What part of the GUB sources would say exactly what's being used from 
the macOS SDK?

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-25 Thread David Kastrup

Karlin High  writes:

> I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be
> built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people,
> and probably the best result for macOS users.

The question was not whether this was the best way but whether it was at
all legal.  I'd certainly want us to have a MacOSX installer that just
falls out with as little per-version human effort as it and other
installers do now.  If Apple says "no" to using Xcode for that purpose,
then we cannot argue our way out of that but there may be other
development environments that we can make use of.  That's why I
suggested looking what is available for Darwin (I think OpenDarwin at
some point of time closed shop but that was some time ago and I haven't
followed developments).

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


On 2/24/2019 5:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

Hans Åberg  writes:


Xcode license:
   https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf


Well, I think that one is pretty clear:

 2.5
 Copies

 [...] For clarity, You may copy only the entire package or piece of
 the Apple Software and Services in its entirety and only for use as
 permitted herein. You may not alter the Apple Software or Services
 in any way in such copy, e.g., You are expressly prohibited from
 separately using the Apple SDKs or attempting to run any part of the
 Apple Software on non-Apple-branded hardware.  [...]

So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB.
It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX
packagers/versions altogether.



I wonder what the chances are of finding an older XCode's Apple SDK with 
a more permissive license agreement? Archive.org's oldest copy of that 
Apple SLA document link is from 2011:




The XCodes I was eyeing for SDK extraction are from 2009 or so.

I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be 
built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people, and 
probably the best result for macOS users.


I'm planing to ask on the Apple Developer Forum about possibilities for 
Linux cross-compile - explaining our current situation, future options, 
and software license concerns.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Carl Sorensen  writes:

> On 2/24/19, 12:47 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
>  d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> 
> If libraries with incompatible license would require to be linked, it
> means "nothing" in the sense of "there is nothing we can offer for
> MacOSX".
> 
> We can offer sources and a build recipe; we cannot distribute the
> software, but we can distribute the sources, if I understand the GPL
> correctly.

Uh, we _do_ distribute the sources of LilyPond and sure, Apple cannot
protest that we do so even if they happen to compile under MacOSX.  But
we were talking about distributing binaries here.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-24 Thread Carl Sorensen

On 2/24/19, 12:47 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" 
 
wrote:

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 19:28, Karlin High  wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 AM Hans Åberg  wrote:
>> 
>> > On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen  wrote:
>> > 
>> > Still needs to download the SDK from Apple:
>> > 
>> > https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk 
>> 
>> They are listed at
>>   https://developer.apple.com/download/more/
>> One needs to have an account and log in. Mentioned at the bottom at
>>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode
>> 
>> I am thinking about what it means if lilypond.org can no longer
>> provide the Apple SDK, etc for automatic download by GUB.
>> 
>> It seems like anyone that wants to do GUB builds for macOS would
>> need to get an Apple account and download the software
>> themselves. Less convenient, but how much harder then setting up
>> LilyDev? To me it doesn't seem like a show-stopper.
>
> One has always had to have an account for the actual download.
>
> Is it for the app you need the SDK, or it is something else?
>
>> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage
>> rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide
>> an overview of what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS
>> effort?
>
> Nothing, I would think.

If libraries with incompatible license would require to be linked, it
means "nothing" in the sense of "there is nothing we can offer for
MacOSX".

We can offer sources and a build recipe; we cannot distribute the software, but 
we can distribute the sources, if I understand the GPL correctly.

Apple would let somebody who own a Mac  link against the SDK and distribute an 
executable, since it is designed to run on Apple hardware.

I don't think the GPL would let us distribute a binary, since the LilyPond 
organization can't get the sources to the SDK.

Thanks,

Carl Sorensen


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?



> On 25 Feb 2019, at 01:04, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
>>> So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB.
>>> It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX
>>> packagers/versions altogether.
>> 
>> US copyright law makes an exception for computer maintenance, so it
>> would seem OK to develop on another platform, and distribute it for
>> use on the indicated hardware.
> 
> I don't see any judge buying application development on a computer owned
> by someone who has no idea what computer the application is going to be
> used on as "computer maintenance".

Apple used it once with a bug report I made, but you might wait and see what 
the judge says, or check with somebody who is into law.

>> Another exception: Some OS X server version has been made available on
>> VirtualBox.org and I figure one might run Xcode within that. Their
>> legal department perhaps didn't think about that.
>> 
>> But you might look into making a MacPorts version, using GCC.
> 
> We _are_ using GCC but we also need a runtime environment.

Xcode uses Apple's inhouse Clang, so MacPorts would be a way to avoid that. The 
ABI is the same, and also the debugging format, but the Xcode debugger 
complains about OS version when using GCC. Emacs has an app that is installed 
via MacPorts, so it links against the OS X runtime environments for the GUI.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


> On 25 Feb 2019, at 01:04, Karlin High  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:48 PM Hans Åberg  wrote:
> 
> > On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:10, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> > So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB.
> > It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX
> > packagers/versions altogether.
> 
> But you might look into making a MacPorts version, using GCC.
> 
> How about infrequently using a Mac computer to build a LilyPond macOS 
> installer? Say, once a year or every stable release. Then if someone's not 
> technically inclined, doesn't want to get involved with MacPorts or Homebrew, 
> and doesn't care about using the latest development version, they would have 
> another option for using LilyPond.

TeXLive has that, at https://tug.org/mactex/, you might check with them. But 
MacPorts has all the dependencies so it might be easier, which I used for a 
port of the microtonal program Scala.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:10, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>>> Xcode license:
>>>  https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf
>> 
>> Well, I think that one is pretty clear:
>> 
>>2.5
>>Copies
>> 
>>[...] For clarity, You may copy only the entire package or piece of
>>the Apple Software and Services in its entirety and only for use as
>>permitted herein. You may not alter the Apple Software or Services
>>in any way in such copy, e.g., You are expressly prohibited from
>>separately using the Apple SDKs or attempting to run any part of the
>>Apple Software on non-Apple-branded hardware.  [...]
>> 
>> So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB.
>> It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX
>> packagers/versions altogether.
>
> US copyright law makes an exception for computer maintenance, so it
> would seem OK to develop on another platform, and distribute it for
> use on the indicated hardware.

I don't see any judge buying application development on a computer owned
by someone who has no idea what computer the application is going to be
used on as "computer maintenance".

> Another exception: Some OS X server version has been made available on
> VirtualBox.org and I figure one might run Xcode within that. Their
> legal department perhaps didn't think about that.
>
> But you might look into making a MacPorts version, using GCC.

We _are_ using GCC but we also need a runtime environment.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-24 Thread Karlin High

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:48 PM Hans Åberg  wrote:

>
> > On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:10, David Kastrup  wrote:
>
> > So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB.
> > It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX
> > packagers/versions altogether.
>
> But you might look into making a MacPorts version, using GCC.
>

How about infrequently using a Mac computer to build a LilyPond macOS
installer? Say, once a year or every stable release. Then if someone's not
technically inclined, doesn't want to get involved with MacPorts or
Homebrew, and doesn't care about using the latest development version, they
would have another option for using LilyPond.
-- 
Karlin High
Missouri, USA
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:10, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
>> Xcode license:
>>  https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf
> 
> Well, I think that one is pretty clear:
> 
>2.5
>Copies
> 
>[...] For clarity, You may copy only the entire package or piece of
>the Apple Software and Services in its entirety and only for use as
>permitted herein. You may not alter the Apple Software or Services
>in any way in such copy, e.g., You are expressly prohibited from
>separately using the Apple SDKs or attempting to run any part of the
>Apple Software on non-Apple-branded hardware.  [...]
> 
> So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB.
> It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX
> packagers/versions altogether.

US copyright law makes an exception for computer maintenance, so it would seem 
OK to develop on another platform, and distribute it for use on the indicated 
hardware.

Another exception: Some OS X server version has been made available on 
VirtualBox.org and I figure one might run Xcode within that. Their legal 
department perhaps didn't think about that.

But you might look into making a MacPorts version, using GCC.

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 21:39, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>> Hans Åberg  writes:
>> 
 On 24 Feb 2019, at 20:47, David Kastrup  wrote:

>> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage
>> rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide
>> an overview of what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS
>> effort?
> 
> Nothing, I would think.

 If libraries with incompatible license would require to be linked, it
 means "nothing" in the sense of "there is nothing we can offer for
 MacOSX".
>>> 
>>> I do not think it is any more incompatible than pre 64 bit.
>> 
>> We had this discussion already.  Just because the change to GPLv3 was
>> not likely checked to be license compatible with a no longer
>> identifiable version of Xcode does not mean that we can blindly go ahead
>> without checking when we can.
>
> Xcode license:
>   https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf

Well, I think that one is pretty clear:

2.5
Copies

[...] For clarity, You may copy only the entire package or piece of
the Apple Software and Services in its entirety and only for use as
permitted herein. You may not alter the Apple Software or Services
in any way in such copy, e.g., You are expressly prohibited from
separately using the Apple SDKs or attempting to run any part of the
Apple Software on non-Apple-branded hardware.  [...]

So the current Xcode SDK very clearly is off-limits for use within GUB.
It's probably either some Darwin SDK or we'll stop providing MacOSX
packagers/versions altogether.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


> On 24 Feb 2019, at 21:39, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg  writes:
> 
>>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 20:47, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>> 
> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage
> rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide
> an overview of what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS
> effort?
 
 Nothing, I would think.
>>> 
>>> If libraries with incompatible license would require to be linked, it
>>> means "nothing" in the sense of "there is nothing we can offer for
>>> MacOSX".
>> 
>> I do not think it is any more incompatible than pre 64 bit.
> 
> We had this discussion already.  Just because the change to GPLv3 was
> not likely checked to be license compatible with a no longer
> identifiable version of Xcode does not mean that we can blindly go ahead
> without checking when we can.

Xcode license:
  https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 20:47, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
 Are there any other considerations here related to software usage
 rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide
 an overview of what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS
 effort?
>>> 
>>> Nothing, I would think.
>> 
>> If libraries with incompatible license would require to be linked, it
>> means "nothing" in the sense of "there is nothing we can offer for
>> MacOSX".
>
> I do not think it is any more incompatible than pre 64 bit.

We had this discussion already.  Just because the change to GPLv3 was
not likely checked to be license compatible with a no longer
identifiable version of Xcode does not mean that we can blindly go ahead
without checking when we can.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?



> On 24 Feb 2019, at 20:47, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
>>> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage
>>> rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide
>>> an overview of what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS
>>> effort?
>> 
>> Nothing, I would think.
> 
> If libraries with incompatible license would require to be linked, it
> means "nothing" in the sense of "there is nothing we can offer for
> MacOSX".

I do not think it is any more incompatible than pre 64 bit.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 24 Feb 2019, at 19:28, Karlin High  wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 AM Hans Åberg  wrote:
>> 
>> > On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen  wrote:
>> > 
>> > Still needs to download the SDK from Apple:
>> > 
>> > https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk 
>> 
>> They are listed at
>>   https://developer.apple.com/download/more/
>> One needs to have an account and log in. Mentioned at the bottom at
>>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode
>> 
>> I am thinking about what it means if lilypond.org can no longer
>> provide the Apple SDK, etc for automatic download by GUB.
>> 
>> It seems like anyone that wants to do GUB builds for macOS would
>> need to get an Apple account and download the software
>> themselves. Less convenient, but how much harder then setting up
>> LilyDev? To me it doesn't seem like a show-stopper.
>
> One has always had to have an account for the actual download.
>
> Is it for the app you need the SDK, or it is something else?
>
>> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage
>> rights? GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide
>> an overview of what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS
>> effort?
>
> Nothing, I would think.

If libraries with incompatible license would require to be linked, it
means "nothing" in the sense of "there is nothing we can offer for
MacOSX".

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?


> On 24 Feb 2019, at 19:28, Karlin High  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 AM Hans Åberg  wrote:
> 
> > On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen  wrote:
> > 
> > Still needs to download the SDK from Apple:
> > 
> > https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk 
> 
> They are listed at
>   https://developer.apple.com/download/more/
> One needs to have an account and log in. Mentioned at the bottom at
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode
> 
> I am thinking about what it means if lilypond.org can no longer provide the 
> Apple SDK, etc for automatic download by GUB.
> 
> It seems like anyone that wants to do GUB builds for macOS would need to get 
> an Apple account and download the software themselves. Less convenient, but 
> how much harder then setting up LilyDev? To me it doesn't seem like a 
> show-stopper.

One has always had to have an account for the actual download.

Is it for the app you need the SDK, or it is something else?

> Are there any other considerations here related to software usage rights? GPL 
> v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide an overview of what 
> that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS effort?

Nothing, I would think.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

2019-02-24 Thread Karlin High

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 7:26 AM Hans Åberg  wrote:

>
> > On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen  wrote:
> >
> > Still needs to download the SDK from Apple:
> >
> > https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk
>
> They are listed at
>   https://developer.apple.com/download/more/
> One needs to have an account and log in. Mentioned at the bottom at
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode

I am thinking about what it means if lilypond.org can no longer provide the
Apple SDK, etc for automatic download by GUB.

It seems like anyone that wants to do GUB builds for macOS would need to
get an Apple account and download the software themselves. Less convenient,
but how much harder then setting up LilyDev? To me it doesn't seem like a
show-stopper.

Are there any other considerations here related to software usage rights?
GPL v2 versus v3 was mentioned earlier; can anyone provide an overview of
what that change means for a LilyPond 64 bit macOS effort?
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 24 Feb 2019, at 01:16, Carl Sorensen  wrote:
> 
> Still needs to download the SDK from Apple:
> 
> https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk 

They are listed at
  https://developer.apple.com/download/more/
One needs to have an account and log in. Mentioned at the bottom at
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?