Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 04.12.2013 19:44, schrieb David Kastrup: >> Catering for integration of Frescobaldi would be a real headache. And >> the documentation would need adapting as well. That's not to say >> anything about the value provided by such an approach, but it would >> likely make a lot more sense and a lot less work if the primary >> installed application was Frescobaldi and it offered to install LilyPond >> for you using one of our installers, rather than trying to do it the >> other way round. >> >> It would also make juggling with several versions a lot nicer since then >> Frescobaldi can manage paths, and knows where it put things. > > I don't know if that's something which could get a sufficient majority > because it somehow would make Frescobaldi look like an official editor > ;-)
Not really. We'd just recommend downloading and installing Frescobaldi on certain platforms for getting a customary user experience rather than a command line application. > Bit I'm quite sure it would be trivial to include such a functionality > in Fresobaldi. For a very variable value of "trivial". But I think it would make sense to do this distribution of labor/development for platforms where it would work. > It would be simple to add a menu item that looks for updates, fetches > and installs LilyPond, and finally adds it to the list of configured > LilyPond instances. > Such a function could easily be added to the installation process of > Frescobaldi. > > Well, maybe a good idea to add that anyway. It seems like a more common use case to use Frescobaldi for managing multiple LilyPond's installed by LilyPond's installer than the other way round, namely managing multiple Frescobaldi instances. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
