On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:17 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > > > On 4/22/21, 9:49 AM, "Bart Kummel" <b...@kummelweb.nl> wrote: > > > > I think you should re-consider this comment: "The other option is > ditching > > LilyPad and doing a Darwin-only version of LilyPond, assuming that > we can > > do this with suitably free components.", by David Kastrup. I don't > think > > many people are using the limited editor LilyPad. There are a lot of > better > > tools available (Frescobaldi). I'd rather have a native LilyPond > without > > the *Pad, than having to compile it myself or rely on a Docker > solution. > > > > This implies that the only reason we need Apple's SDK is for compiling > > the LilyPad editor. Is that true? > > I think there were also native font libraries involved but they might > likely be replaced with more generic ones at some loss of versatility.
I’ll refresh my memory, but I don’t recall any native font libraries, though I think I did have to install some MacPorts font packages. LilyPad is mostly useful so that the .app bundle has *some* GUI. I’d rather bundle Frescobaldi than LilyPad, but the advantages of a self-contained .app bundle are too big to give up. > > -- > David Kastrup Best, > > -- Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
