On 1/20/20, 2:38 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Han-Wen Nienhuys"
<lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu....@gnu.org on behalf of
hanw...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the state of our binary releases? We currently have to
maintain GUB, and GUB builds are quite slow. Our apple story is even more
complicated, because of the Apple hardware requirement.
We currently have a user who has figured out how to take a MacPorts build and
turn it into an application bundle. I think that we are in the final stages of
having that build ready to go.
Wouldn't it be much more simple to build lilypond as a Docker application?
I don't know anything about building lilypond as a Docker application. If it
were possible to execute a docker application from the command line in MacOS,
then I think that would meet my requirements. I need to be able to have
multiple binaries installed so that I can run multiple versions from
Frescobaldi.
Then we could just offer a single binary to download, which windows/mac
users can run. We don't have to cross-compile the app which further reduces
build times. The containerized app is still hermetic, so we can be in full
control of the dependency versions
As far as I can see right now, the time it takes to complete a GUB build is not
that important. But the complexity of the GUB build system is hugely
important. It's a big obstacle to getting contributors going.
How difficult would it be to set up a build environment for making the Docker
application? A second major obstacle to developing is the difficulty of
setting up a build environment for lilypond, especially in Windows and MacOS.
The recommended way to build now is via a virtual machine, with the extra
challenges of trying to maintain the VM image. If the process of making the
Docker application would also allow a simple set up for a build environment in
non-Linux machines, I think that would be a huge win.
Thanks,
Carl
