Aredridel wrote:
What to do? Maybe we should just change the 'do not compile' attitude a bit, and have 'supported' development platforms with a detailed recipe to compile lily. The contributers of binary releases should make sure that the recipe stays up to date. Would this work?
I'd like that attitude change. Lilypond is not -that- hard to compile -- it's easier than Mozilla, easier than GNOME, easier than TeX itself. The dependencies are not well documented in the docs, but the recipe itself isn't too hard (I have it in .spec form for making RPMs for the PLD distribution) -- once you get the prerequisites, the rest fairly flies, especially if you're ignoring packaging issues.
I actually find that the depencies are well documented in INSTALL.txt, what information did you miss? Of course, it may sometimes be tricky to find out what RPM/.dpkg contains the necessary programs and files but that's hardly a LilyPond problem.
/Mats
_______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
