PATCHES - Countdown for May 17th

[James Lowe]

Hello,

Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on 
May 19th.

A quick synopsis of all patches currently in the review process can be 
found here:

http://philholmes.net/lilypond/allura/




Push:

No patches to push at this time.


Countdown:

No patches on countdown at this time.


Review:

No patches in review at this time


New:

5518 Document bound-details (sub-)properties in line-spanner-cc for IR - 
Thomas Morley
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5518
http://codereview.appspot.com/560670043



***

Regards,


James
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

PATCHES - Countdown for May 17th

[James Lowe]

Hello,

Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on 
May 19th.

A quick synopsis of all patches currently in the review process can be 
found here:

http://philholmes.net/lilypond/allura/




Push:

No patches to push at this time.


Countdown:

No patches on countdown at this time.


Review:

No patches in review at this time


New:

5518 Document bound-details (sub-)properties in line-spanner-cc for IR - 
Thomas Morley
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5518
http://codereview.appspot.com/560670043



***

Regards,


James
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 1:33 AM Werner LEMBERG  wrote:

> > I think this is poor advice.  IMHO MacPorts is very hard to work
> > with (as an end user) compared to Homebrew, and I haven't seen
> > anyone using MacPorts on their Mac in well over a decade.
>
> Given that MacPorts supports more packages than Homebrew this is a
> very bold statement.


Homebrew supports enough packages, and it’s really easy to add new ones, so
that’s pretty much irrelevant.  (I used to maintain the Homebrew
Frescobaldi package, before there were Mac binaries available.)


And all users that don't use the two latest
> releases of MacOS (like me) are out of the game, too.
>
> [Note that I'm not a MacOS user at all.  For daily work I'm
>  exclusively using GNU/Linux.  It's just that I'm interested in
>  providing support even on exotic platforms :-)]


Since you’re not a Mac user, are you in any position to talk about what’s
more usable on Mac OS *to experienced Mac users*?

I use Mac OS as my primary platform, FWIW.


>
> > For myself, I hate MacPorts so much that if LilyPond came to require
> > MacPorts, [...]
>
> Just wondering: What's the reason for this?


It’s been a long time since I used MacPorts, so my recollections are hazy.
But as far as I recall, it puts a lot of duplicated crap on the computer,
the CLI was needlessly complicated compared to Fink or Homebrew, and
virtually every interaction with it annoyed me.  Perhaps they’ve fixed
these issues, but since it kind of wants to take over the world, it’s hard
for me to test it again and get rid of it if I don’t like it.  (I suppose I
could use a VM.)

Also, since I already use Homebrew extensively, I’d rather avoid installing
a parallel piece of software with a parallel package tree.

If you’re not a Mac user, I suppose it makes sense that you’d prefer
MacPorts: isn’t it more or less a BSD package manager?  The problem,
though, is that it doesn’t fit the spirit of Mac OS very well.  Homebrew
does a *much* better job at playing nice with the rest of the OS, its CLI
is pleasant, and it’s easy to create new packages.


>
> > I just don't want MacPorts anywhere near my computer, and I hope I
> > will not be forced to use it in order to continue to use LilyPond on
> > my Mac.
>
> There is a fundamental misunderstanding.  Nobody is *forced* to use
> MacPorts!  LilyPond doesn't depend on it.


If the alternative is manually downloading all the dependencies and
building manually, then a package manager is nearly essential for a complex
program like LilyPond. :)

(For myself, even with Homebrew installed, I’d rather download a binary
than build from source anyway, though I will do the latter when it makes
sense.)

Homebrew itself doesn't
> contain lilypond-dev; you rather have to use a private cask instead,
> for example
>
>
> https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask-versions/blob/master/Casks/lilypond-dev.rb


I’m not sure how this is relevant.  And it wouldn’t be hard to make the
cask public if wanted.


>
> > [...] I could probably put some effort into getting a Travis Mac
> > build environment set up (though I don't expect to have much free
> > time before July).  I've used Travis on many projects in the past
> > and I'm reasonably familiar with it.
>
> It would be really great if you can assist in providing a 64bit Mac
> binary that doesn't violate any licences, and we are more than happy
> if you have success.


I intend to try if no one has come up with a better solution by then.  It’s
important to me to keep Mac binaries available.

A lot of the natural users for LilyPond are composers.  Many of them are
not very technical and won’t want to install a package manager when they
can get MuseScore, Finale, Sibelius, or Noteflight without that extra
step.  That’s one reason that I think it’s important to lower the bar to
getting a binary as much as possible.


>
>
> Werner
>
Best,
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> And all users that don't use the two latest releases of MacOS (like
>> me) are out of the game, too.
>>
>> [Note that I'm not a MacOS user at all.  For daily work I'm
>>  exclusively using GNU/Linux.  It's just that I'm interested in
>>  providing support even on exotic platforms :-)]
> 
> Since you’re not a Mac user, are you in any position to talk about
> what’s more usable on Mac OS *to experienced Mac users*?

Uh, oh, a smiley in the end seems not to be enough to mark irony...

Irrespective of that, Homebrew does not support macOS 10.7, so this is
not related to `experience' at all.

> If you’re not a Mac user, I suppose it makes sense that you’d prefer
> MacPorts: isn’t it more or less a BSD package manager?  The problem,
> though, is that it doesn’t fit the spirit of Mac OS very well.
> Homebrew does a *much* better job at playing nice with the rest of
> the OS, its CLI is pleasant, and it’s easy to create new packages.

I started with Homebrew, but since 10.7 is no longer supported I was
forced to abandon it.  By the way, it seems to me that your `hazy
recollections' are no longer valid, as far as I can tell.  Having used
both package managers I don't see an essential difference in the CLI
(except that Homebrew uses colours and the sexy beer emoji on the
command line).

> A lot of the natural users for LilyPond are composers.  Many of them
> are not very technical and won’t want to install a package manager
> when they can get MuseScore, Finale, Sibelius, or Noteflight without
> that extra step.  That’s one reason that I think it’s important to
> lower the bar to getting a binary as much as possible.

Agreed.


Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 1:13 PM Werner LEMBERG  wrote:

>
> >> And all users that don't use the two latest releases of MacOS (like
> >> me) are out of the game, too.
> >>
> >> [Note that I'm not a MacOS user at all.  For daily work I'm
> >>  exclusively using GNU/Linux.  It's just that I'm interested in
> >>  providing support even on exotic platforms :-)]
> >
> > Since you’re not a Mac user, are you in any position to talk about
> > what’s more usable on Mac OS *to experienced Mac users*?
>
> Uh, oh, a smiley in the end seems not to be enough to mark irony...
>
> Irrespective of that, Homebrew does not support macOS 10.7, so this is
> not related to `experience' at all.
>

Good to know; I wasn't aware of that.  However, won't our existing 32-bit
Mac build process be sufficient for 10.7?


>
> > If you’re not a Mac user, I suppose it makes sense that you’d prefer
> > MacPorts: isn’t it more or less a BSD package manager?  The problem,
> > though, is that it doesn’t fit the spirit of Mac OS very well.
> > Homebrew does a *much* better job at playing nice with the rest of
> > the OS, its CLI is pleasant, and it’s easy to create new packages.
>
> I started with Homebrew, but since 10.7 is no longer supported I was
> forced to abandon it.  By the way, it seems to me that your `hazy
> recollections' are no longer valid, as far as I can tell.  Having used
> both package managers I don't see an essential difference in the CLI
> (except that Homebrew uses colours and the sexy beer emoji on the
> command line).
>

Thanks, that's good to know.  I'll probably have a look at current MacPorts
in a VM, then, and see what I think of it now.

Best,
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser
mar...@marnen.org
http://www.marnen.org
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> [...], Homebrew does not support macOS 10.7, [...]
> 
> Good to know; I wasn't aware of that.  However, won't our existing
> 32-bit Mac build process be sufficient for 10.7?

Yes.  But this fact doesn't help in creating 64bit stuff for new MacOS
versions.


Werner

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 1:54 PM Werner LEMBERG  wrote:

>
> >> [...], Homebrew does not support macOS 10.7, [...]
> >
> > Good to know; I wasn't aware of that.  However, won't our existing
> > 32-bit Mac build process be sufficient for 10.7?
>
> Yes.  But this fact doesn't help in creating 64bit stuff for new MacOS
> versions.


Right.  My point is that we already have a build process suitable for 10.7,
and AFAIK we can keep that indefinitely, independent of whatever we do for
newer versions.


>
>
> Werner
>
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Give NoteNames context an \alias Staff (issue 544700043 by d...@gnu.org)

[thomasmorley65]

I didn't find the time to do it myself, sorry.

Ofcourse, LGTM

https://codereview.appspot.com/544700043/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Hans Åberg]

> On 17 May 2019, at 16:10, Marnen Laibow-Koser  wrote:
> 
>> Given that MacPorts supports more packages than Homebrew this is a
>> very bold statement.
> 
> Homebrew supports enough packages, and it’s really easy to add new ones, so
> that’s pretty much irrelevant.

Somebody said it had problems with choosing versions. For example, LilyPond 
uses Guile 1.8, not the latest, and the lilypond in MacPorts uses gcc8, not the 
latest supported gcc9.

As for the SDK, the one they use is the latest having a true GCC, which is 
gcc4, I think, and what is called gcc after that is instead clang, not the 
official version, but an inhouse version, and lilypond does not compile with 
any of them.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:06 PM Hans Åberg  wrote:

>
> > On 17 May 2019, at 16:10, Marnen Laibow-Koser  wrote:
> >
> >> Given that MacPorts supports more packages than Homebrew this is a
> >> very bold statement.
> >
> > Homebrew supports enough packages, and it’s really easy to add new ones,
> so
> > that’s pretty much irrelevant.
>
> Somebody said it had problems with choosing versions. For example,
> LilyPond uses Guile 1.8, not the latest, and the lilypond in MacPorts uses
> gcc8, not the latest supported gcc9.


Will it build with GCC 9?


>
> As for the SDK, the one they use is the latest having a true GCC, which is
> gcc4, I think, and what is called gcc after that is instead clang, not the
> official version, but an inhouse version, and lilypond does not compile
> with any of them.


Hmm.  If LilyPond won’t compile with Clang/LLVM, I wonder if that would be
a problem for 64-bit Mac builds, because I don’t know if the macOS SDK will
build with GCC.  (It certainly might; I haven’t checked.)

Best,
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Daniel Johnson]

Here is my summary of what has been discussed regarding MacOS builds 
over the last couple months. I feel like we are largely rehashing the 
same questions/answers.


1. Lilypond’s current build system is GUB. GUB is a cross-platform 
all-in-one build system which produces binaries for Linux, Windows, BSD, 
and MacOS.
2. MacOS Mojave periodically issues warnings that 32-bit applications 
will not run on the next version of MacOS.
3. Precompiled Lilypond binaries for MacOS are only available in 32-bit 
versions.
4. The above is true because in order to create a version of Lilypond 
that has GUI aspects and/or can be invoked from the Finder, it must be 
compiled against the XCode SDK.
  a. Older, 32-bit only versions of the SDK are GPL3-compatible; this 
is why 32-bit MacOS binaries have been available up to this point.
  b. Versions of the SDK with 64-bit support are not license-compatible 
with GPL3, which is the license Lilypond uses.
  c. These more modern versions of the SDK require compilation on Apple 
hardware.
  d. Therefore, 64-bit versions of Lilypond for MacOS cannot be 
compiled with GUI/Darwin support.
5. Lilypond must be compiled with GCC rather than clang, due to 
differences in how the C++ standard is interpreted regarding templates. 
There does not seem to be a reasonable solution to this issue.
6. MacOS provides a CLI binary called gcc, but it is just a thin wrapper 
around clang and therefore cannot be used.
7. Lilypond performs best (and most stably) when compiled against Guile 
1.8. Current versions of Guile are 2.x; this is the version shipped by 
default by pretty much every package manager for MacOS.
8. There are two major CLI package managers for MacOS, which are not 
interchangeable with each other: MacPorts and Homebrew. I am ignoring 
Fink for now. Both MacPorts and Homebrew supply GCC binaries.
9. Homebrew has dropped TeXLive support entirely. Lilypond requires TeX 
and supporting libraries in order to build. You can, however, install 
MacTeX using homebrew casks. With some supplemental software you can 
make Lilypond build using MacTeX.


For the record, I have successfully built 64-bit Lilypond on a Homebrew 
base. In addition to adding a few contributed taps, I had to manually 
download, build and install the following:

- TeX Gyre font
- Flex 2.5.37
- Extractpdfmark
- Lilypond itself

I did not attempt to build documentation.

Full details here: 
http://danieljohnson.name/blog/installing-lilypond-on-macos


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Hans Åberg]

> On 17 May 2019, at 21:14, Marnen Laibow-Koser  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:06 PM Hans Åberg  wrote:
> 
>> LilyPond uses Guile 1.8, not the latest, and the lilypond in MacPorts uses 
>> gcc8, not the latest supported gcc9.
>> 
> Will it build with GCC 9?

That would need to be tested, but Werner said gcc9 does not build on earlier 
MacOS, and I saw somebody complaining it having clang listed as a dependency.

>> As for the SDK, the one they use is the latest having a true GCC, which is 
>> gcc4, I think, and what is called gcc after that is instead clang, not the 
>> official version, but an inhouse version, and lilypond does not compile with 
>> any of them.
>> 
> Hmm.  If LilyPond won’t compile with Clang/LLVM, I wonder if that would be a 
> problem for 64-bit Mac builds, because I don’t know if the macOS SDK will 
> build with GCC.  (It certainly might; I haven’t checked.)

One problem was different interpretation of some C++ templates, so that would 
have to be rewritten in LilyPond.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:27 PM Hans Åberg  wrote:

>
> > On 17 May 2019, at 21:14, Marnen Laibow-Koser  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:06 PM Hans Åberg  wrote:
> >
> >> LilyPond uses Guile 1.8, not the latest, and the lilypond in MacPorts
> uses gcc8, not the latest supported gcc9.
> >>
> > Will it build with GCC 9?
>
> That would need to be tested, but Werner said gcc9 does not build on
> earlier MacOS,


Does that matter? We already have a build process that works for earlier
Mac OS.  It sounds like as long as both GCC 8 and 9 are supported, we might
be OK.  But I’m sort of speculating.

and I saw somebody complaining it having clang listed as a dependency.


LilyPond having Clang listed as a dependency, or GCC having Clang as a
dependency?

>

>
> >> As for the SDK, the one they use is the latest having a true GCC, which
> is gcc4, I think, and what is called gcc after that is instead clang, not
> the official version, but an inhouse version, and lilypond does not compile
> with any of them.
> >>
> > Hmm.  If LilyPond won’t compile with Clang/LLVM, I wonder if that would
> be a problem for 64-bit Mac builds, because I don’t know if the macOS SDK
> will build with GCC.  (It certainly might; I haven’t checked.)
>
> One problem was different interpretation of some C++ templates, so that
> would have to be rewritten in LilyPond.


Hmm.  At this point I should probably stop speculating and set up a build
environment.  But I’m getting married in a month and am not committing to
any big projects before the wedding. :)

Best,
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Hans Åberg]

> On 17 May 2019, at 21:48, Marnen Laibow-Koser  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:27 PM Hans Åberg  wrote:
> 
> > On 17 May 2019, at 21:14, Marnen Laibow-Koser  wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:06 PM Hans Åberg  wrote:
> > 
> >> LilyPond uses Guile 1.8, not the latest, and the lilypond in MacPorts uses 
> >> gcc8, not the latest supported gcc9.
> >> 
> > Will it build with GCC 9?
> 
> That would need to be tested, but Werner said gcc9 does not build on earlier 
> MacOS,
> 
> Does that matter? We already have a build process that works for earlier Mac 
> OS.  It sounds like as long as both GCC 8 and 9 are supported, we might be 
> OK.  But I’m sort of speculating. 

Werner will have to tune in on that.

> and I saw somebody complaining it having clang listed as a dependency.
> 
> LilyPond having Clang listed as a dependency, or GCC having Clang as a 
> dependency?

GCC 9 and maybe 8 too; I do not know if it is important.


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[James]

Hello,

On 17/05/2019 20:37, Daniel Johnson wrote:
Here is my summary of what has been discussed regarding MacOS builds 
over the last couple months. I feel like we are largely rehashing the 
same questions/answers.


...

For the record, I have successfully built 64-bit Lilypond on a 
Homebrew base. In addition to adding a few contributed taps, I had to 
manually download, build and install the following:

- TeX Gyre font
- Flex 2.5.37
- Extractpdfmark
- Lilypond itself

I did not attempt to build documentation.


Then you did not need  Extractpdfmark and/or TexGyre.

They are only required for doc/website building and is why they are not 
'required' packages.


Regards and keep up the good work.

James



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Hans Åberg]

> On 17 May 2019, at 21:37, Daniel Johnson  wrote:
> 
> I had to manually download, build and install the following:
> - TeX Gyre font
> - Flex 2.5.37

Later version of Flex have broken C++ generation. Akim Demaille found a way 
around this, maybe here:
  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-bison/2019-05/msg00014.html



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:48 PM Marnen Laibow-Koser 
wrote:

>
> Hmm.  At this point I should probably stop speculating and set up a build
> environment.  But I’m getting married in a month and am not committing to
> any big projects before the wedding. :)
>

As I start to think about how to do this, it would be helpful for me to
know where the current Mac build instructions and/or script are.  I’m
assuming that lilypond.make in the GUB repo is where I should be
looking...or is there a better place?

>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from
> Gmail Mobile
>
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Carl Sorensen]

I'm pretty sure there are no Mac build instructions for Lilypond.

The Linux build instructions are in the Contributor's Guide.

GUB is a Linux build environment.

Daniel reported success in a Homebrew build for the Mac.  I would guess that 
he's willing to share it with you.

I hope you can get it working!  I'm a Mac user and would love to get to 64 bit.

Carl

Carl

On May 17, 2019 5:03 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser  wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:48 PM Marnen Laibow-Koser 
wrote:

>
> Hmm.  At this point I should probably stop speculating and set up a build
> environment.  But I’m getting married in a month and am not committing to
> any big projects before the wedding. :)
>

As I start to think about how to do this, it would be helpful for me to
know where the current Mac build instructions and/or script are.  I’m
assuming that lilypond.make in the GUB repo is where I should be
looking...or is there a better place?

>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from
> Gmail Mobile
>
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 8:58 PM Carl Sorensen  wrote:

> I'm pretty sure there are no Mac build instructions for Lilypond.
>
> The Linux build instructions are in the Contributor's Guide.
>
> GUB is a Linux build environment.
>

I know GUB is a Linux build environment, but that’s irrelevant since it’s
where the Mac builds are currently being done, and therefore it’s where I’d
expect the Mac build scripts to live.

>
> Daniel reported success in a Homebrew build for the Mac.  I would guess
> that he's willing to share it with you.
>

I didn’t think he had reported actual success, but Daniel, if you’re
reading this, I’d love to see the relevant Homebrew formula if it exists.

>
> I hope you can get it working!  I'm a Mac user and would love to get to 64
> bit.
>

I suspect I can, but we’ll see.


> Carl
>
> Carl
>
> On May 17, 2019 5:03 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser  wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:48 PM Marnen Laibow-Koser 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hmm.  At this point I should probably stop speculating and set up a build
> > environment.  But I’m getting married in a month and am not committing to
> > any big projects before the wedding. :)
> >
>
> As I start to think about how to do this, it would be helpful for me to
> know where the current Mac build instructions and/or script are.  I’m
> assuming that lilypond.make in the GUB repo is where I should be
> looking...or is there a better place?
>
> >
> > Best,
> > --
> > Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from
> > Gmail Mobile
> >
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from
> Gmail
> Mobile
> ___
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: macOS 64-bit

[Marnen Laibow-Koser]

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 6:06 PM Jahrme Risner  wrote:
[...]

> Second, one of the consistent issues which Travis CI would not be able to
> solve is the dependence on LaTeX (texlive). There is not, AFAIK, *any*
> elegant
> solution to the usage of texlive on macOS. Homebrew, which is the package
> manager used for macOS builds on Travis CI, has chosen to completely remove
> texlive and all[*] related packages.


My understanding is that MacTeX is basically the Mac packaging of TeXLive
(am I right about that?), and MacTeX *is* available on Homebrew, at least
as a cask.

But even if that weren’t true, it would still probably be possible to
install it on a Travis VM.  Travis makes using Homebrew especially easy,
but it is perfectly possible to install things in other ways in the Travis
environment.


> * There may be a few packages that have found workarounds,
>   but if so they are few and far-between.
> As such, from my reading, the most common workaround to build and use
> Docker
> images inside of Travis CI to run texlive related programs which would add
> an
> extra level of complexity.


That should not be necessary at all.


>
> Third, assuming Travis CI *could* build LilyPond successfully and was the
> recommended way to build for macOS, I believe there should be some way for
> developers to request builds when testing patches/changes to ensure that
> changes are not breaking macOS builds. The most common way to request
> Travis
> CI builds (in my understanding) is through Pull Requests which trigger
> automatic builds. This would then likely require someone to maintain a
> GitHub
> mirror of the LilyPond source from which developers could request builds.


There is already a GitHub mirror of the LilyPond source, so this should be
no problem if I understand you correctly.

A better alternative (in my opinion) would be to set up some form of
> continuous integration for LilyPond in general that could automate this
> testing for all proposed patches. While slightly off-topic, I know that it
> has
> previously been proposed to consider using GitLab.


AFAIK Travis is the only service of its kind that offers a hosted Mac build
environment free of charge for F/OSS projects.  That’s why I’m starting
with it.  If we have a suitable Mac environment elsewhere, great, but I’m
not assuming that we do.

My understanding is that
> GitLab's CI feature is considered to be one of the best free CI services
> available. The main drawback to GitLab's CI is that the "runners" must be
> provided by the organization, so this would necessitate either a physical
> or
> virtual mac; though MacStadium does offer free hosting for open source
> usage.


I’ll check out MacStadium, but my primary concern is to get a build server
set up *somewhere*.   I think Travis is the quickest and easiest way to do
that. If we then want to move it, it shouldn’t be too hard to do so.

[...]

> While I would never presume to say "no" to a project someone is interested
> in,
> I would recommend holding off on investing any serous amount of time in
> Travis builds until macOS build are working on macOS


 I understand why cross-compilation has been useful in the context of GUB,
but if we actually *can’t* build on the target OS, I would consider that to
be a broken build process.  I hope that’s not the case.

and there has been some
> more discussion on the preferred build/distribution work-flow going
> forward.


My intention is to find *some* solution that works and respects license
agreements.  Once we know what that is, we can figure out what a good
workflow for it would be.

>
>
> Best wishes,
> Jahrme
>
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

What version of guile to build 2.21.0

[Andrew Bernard]

What version of guile should I be using to build 2.21.0 on Ubuntu (or
indeed any Linux)?

Apologies for my ignorance, but it is not immediately obvious to me where
this is documented.

Andrew
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: What version of guile to build 2.21.0

[Carl Sorensen]

1.8

On May 17, 2019 9:27 PM, Andrew Bernard  wrote:
What version of guile should I be using to build 2.21.0 on Ubuntu (or
indeed any Linux)?

Apologies for my ignorance, but it is not immediately obvious to me where
this is documented.

Andrew
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: What version of guile to build 2.21.0

[Andrew Bernard]

Thanks Carl,

Most appreciated. I came to figure that, and I have built from guile git
tag release_1-8-8 and all seems to go very well with 2.21.0.

Andrew


On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 13:53, Carl Sorensen  wrote:

> 1.8
>
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: What version of guile to build 2.21.0

[Urs Liska]

Am 18.05.19 um 05:53 schrieb Carl Sorensen:

1.8



It's actually 1.8.8 IIRC

Urs

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel