I agree strongly with this, yes On Tue, 18 Oct 2022, 18:14 Jean Abou Samra, <j...@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/10/2022 à 08:12, Alex Harker a écrit : > > > > > >> On 18 Oct 2022, at 00:05, Carl Sorensen <carl.d.soren...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> IMO, what we most want is an app bundle that can be easily relocated > >> anywhere and that provides all of the binaries used by LilyPond. > >> Frescobaldi can be pointed at that app bundle to run LilyPond. > >> > >> I recognize that most apps have a GUI. But it's not strictly > >> necessary to have a GUI in the app bundle, if I understand correctly. > > > > I can’t be certain on whether the GUI is strictly necessary, because > > I’ve never considered the alternative, but an app bundle with no GUI > > is not something I’ve ever seen on MacOS, so I would not advise making > > one. > > > > However, the notion of a MacOS package on Mac is more general than an > > app bundle, and is simply a folder that has some metadata. The > > contents of the folder can be whatever you want, whereas an app bundle > > implies other things (like it will launch when double clicked and I > > think the bundle structure is expected to follow a given pattern). If > > what is required is just a single ’thing’ (as far as most users are > > concerned) then a package (but not a app) might be most appropriate. > > They can be used for anything where a bunch of structured resources > > should be kept together (some apps use them for documents, for > > instance, such as Logic Pro X - which allows it to keep a bunch of > > audio files inside something that looks like a ‘file'). > > > > The downside of the package approach would be usage entirely on the > > command line, although the barrier may be too small to be considered > > relevant. In the terminal packages act just folders and you can cd > > into them. In the finder you can also look inside them, but need to > > explicitly open them with a right-click contextual menu selection to > > ’Show Package Contents’. Most end users are unaware of this and see > > packages as if they were opaque files. I also don’t know how a package > > approach would operate if someone wanted to install to usr/local or > > similar in order to be able to run lilypond binaries without having to > > type the full location - I can take a look at that. > > > > I am starting to think that since Frescobaldi is the most complete > and beginner-friendly LilyPond environment out there, having a good > installing experience for Frescobaldi and LilyPond together would make > the installing experience for LilyPond without Frescobaldi much less > relevant. > > In particular, > > - as I said earlier, it would be great to have a .dmg for Frescobaldi 3.2, > > - Frescobaldi could gain an interface for easily installing various > LilyPond versions, and the first launch of Frescobaldi could just > open this interface. > > It seems that the old Frescobaldi 1 actually had this. It corresponds to > https://github.com/frescobaldi/frescobaldi/issues/313 > > > Jean > > >