Re: Question: Cross compilation

On 27 Sep 2016 18:31, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" wrote:. > > > A Lilypond build tool for all platforms to which someone's added half > > a dozen extra unrelated targets (possibly very large ones such as > > OpenOffice) = a terrible idea. > > Thanks! GUB was the first to be so generic

Re: Question: Cross compilation

Chris Yate writes: > At a brief look over GUB, the really big question in my mind is why on > earth it seems to want to build *everything*.  That's mostly fault. > A Lilypond build tool for all platforms = a great idea. Thanks. I developed GUB together with Han-Wen and it was our 4th

Re: Question: Cross compilation

- Original Message - From: "Richard Shann" <rich...@rshann.plus.com> To: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> Cc: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>; "Lilypond-User Mailing List" <lilypond-user@gnu.org> Sent: Tuesday, Sep

Re: Question: Cross compilation

- Original Message - From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> To: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> Cc: "Richard Shann" <rich...@rshann.plus.com>; "Lilypond-User Mailing List" <lilypond-user@gnu.org> Sent: Tuesday, Sep

Re: Question: Cross compilation

"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > - Original Message - > From: "Richard Shann" <rich...@rshann.plus.com> > To: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> > Cc: "Lilypond-User Mailing List" <lilypond-user@gnu.org>

Re: Question: Cross compilation

t; > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:38 AM > Subject: Re: Question: Cross compilation > > > > and, more specifically, I would guess they are spent in creating the > > documentation (as this involves running LilyPond on thousands on > > examples). I say this because Den

Re: Question: Cross compilation

On 27 Sep 2016 03:59, "David Kastrup" wrote: > > > At a brief look over GUB, the really big question in my mind is why on > > earth it seems to want to build *everything*. > > It wants to be _able_ to build everything, like autoconf. Fine. But Autoconf doesn't ship with makefiles

Re: Question: Cross compilation

- Original Message - From: "Richard Shann" <rich...@rshann.plus.com> To: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> Cc: "Lilypond-User Mailing List" <lilypond-user@gnu.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:38 AM Subject: Re: Question: Cross com

Re: Question: Cross compilation

On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 04:23 +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Chris Yate writes: > > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup wrote: > > > >> > >> That's pretty good, actually. Not being able to do native/online > >> compilations by anybody wanting to is bad.

Re: Question: Cross compilation

Chris Yate writes: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup wrote: > >> >> That's pretty good, actually. Not being able to do native/online >> compilations by anybody wanting to is bad. Yes. Fixes to GUB (possibly >> even just to its

Re: Question: Cross compilation

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 23:05 Chris Yate wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup wrote: > >> >> That's pretty good, actually. Not being able to do native/online >> compilations by anybody wanting to is bad. Yes. Fixes to GUB (possibly >> even

Re: Question: Cross compilation

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup wrote: > > That's pretty good, actually. Not being able to do native/online > compilations by anybody wanting to is bad. Yes. Fixes to GUB (possibly > even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it > already) are of

Re: Question: Cross compilation

On 26 Sep 2016 20:16, "Phil Holmes" wrote: > > TBH, you'd probably find it far easier to install a Linux VM on your Windows host, and compile the problematic score on that. I've done both, and what I suggest here is what I would do. That's exactly what I've done - I do a

Re: Question: Cross compilation

- Original Message - From: Chris Yate To: David Kastrup Cc: Phil Holmes ; Lilypond-User Mailing List Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Question: Cross compilation On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: Chris Yate &

Re: Question: Cross compilation

Chris Yate writes: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup wrote: > >> Chris Yate writes: >> >> > Hi Phil, >> > >> > Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but >> that >> > it seemed such a ludicrous state

Re: Question: Cross compilation

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup wrote: > Chris Yate writes: > > > Hi Phil, > > > > Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but > that > > it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a > > better

Re: Question: Cross compilation

Chris Yate writes: > Hi Phil, > > Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but that > it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a > better solution. If you can find _any_ free software project requiring a number of free

Re: Question: Cross compilation

> -- > Phil Holmes > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Chris Yate <chrisy...@gmail.com> > *To:* Lilypond-User Mailing List <lilypond-user@gnu.org> > *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 6:54 PM > *Subject:* Question: Cross compilation > > H

Re: Question: Cross compilation

time of the order of 24 hours on a Core i7 quad core system. HTH -- Phil Holmes - Original Message - From: Chris Yate To: Lilypond-User Mailing List Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:54 PM Subject: Question: Cross compilation Hi all, Apologies for the potentially

Question: Cross compilation

Hi all, Apologies for the potentially "blindingly obvious" question, bu't having read the devel webpages about compiling Lilypond for mingw/Windows, I'm none the wiser. I can compile for native linux using the gnu make (via the smart-autoconf.sh script). However, I'm trying to track down a crash