Re: MacOS X development and support
Colin Hall writes: > Hi, > > I'm interested to improve the pace and quality of development of > Lilypond for MacOS X. I'd like to know if the developers are > supportive of this, and get your advice on how to best direct my > efforts. > > First, a few statements to solicit information. I'm keen, but > ignorant. I don't know which devs work on MacOS X development, for > instance. This isn't a witch hunt. Simple "Agree" "Disagree" would be > helpful: > > Development of code specific to the MacOS X platforms, especially > Lilypad, is slow. Looks like it. > We don't have devs or bug squadders with access to Mac hardware to > verify new releases. You have a better overview than I have. > We need more developers working on MacOS X. Yes and no. Most of the problems we had were "GUB" problems. The MacOSX problems mostly were a total lack of timely feedback and system-specific knowledge to deal with GUB problems. But it is not like the principal situation would be better for other platforms. We need timely tests and feedback of MacOSX (I mean, get real: would we even notice if the FreeBSD build did not work?). Oh, by the way, Google's first hit for "LilyPond download" is http://lilypond.org/web/install/> which states "When we have whetted your appetite for LilyPond, then this is the right page." Unfortunately, it is the wrong page since it advocates LilyPond 2.12. Any hope we can at some point of time take those offline? Back to topic: > We don't need MacOS X developers. We just need someone to maintain the > MacOS X aspects of GUB and direct those devs who can help with > patches. Uh, yes. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
2012/3/5 Janek Warchoł : > I'd do this in this way: when the installer installs LilyPond, ask the > user if he wants to install Frescobaldi too. Thus, we won't make our > installer larger and won't have to compile Frescobaldi on our own. Then you wouldn't be able to do offline installations. (And it would add more complexity to the installer; NSIS can do that pretty easily on Windows, but I'm highly doubtful when it comes to Mac and GNU/Linux.) If anything, I think it's _Frescobaldi_ that should include a recent LilyPond build. Not sure if Wilbert has enough available co-developers to handle it, though. (Much less for multiple platforms.) Anyway: please tell me if I should update my "job offer" for a Mac OS X maintainer on the latest LilyReport :-) Cheers, Valentin. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:08 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > James writes: > >> Hello, >> >> On 5 March 2012 07:45, Phil Holmes wrote: >>> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" >>> >>> To: "Colin Hall" >>> > Let's drop Lilypad. It's getting in the way of regular releases. Disagree. >>> >>> Disagree. I'm with Colin. I've already said that I can't see the point of >>> it on Windows: it's a cut-down version of notepad. If it's the same on Mac, >>> I don't see the value. >> >> \PointAndClickOn >> >> That was a great feature for a 'mac user' like me. While I can run CLI >> in terminal.app, getting another editor to work with pointAndClick was >> fruitless and frustrating (at least for 2.12 and 2.13.x when I had my >> mac). >> >> So I'm with Graham on this one. > > As far as I understand, in spite of the initial activities of core > LilyPond developers, LilyPad is basically an external application that > we just wrap and don't actively codevelop (meaning that its overlap with > actual LilyPond development nowadays is rather minimal). > > The principal goal is setting up the user with an environment where he > can start working right away. > > We could pick a different target for that purpose. Personally, I want > to get to a state where Emacs will make a compellingly useful part of > the music creation toolchain. But it would still not be something you > would want to install as part of an installer for LilyPond. It's more > like it would be nice to have some functionality looking for an > installed version of Emacs and integrating with it. > > I think Frescobaldo might be a nice fit by now (as far as I understand, > it does no longer require KDE, merely Qt). It does quite more than > LilyPad, integrates nice with a GUI, and still does not obscure working > with LilyPond, like the applications NtEd and similar do. generally +1. I'd do this in this way: when the installer installs LilyPond, ask the user if he wants to install Frescobaldi too. Thus, we won't make our installer larger and won't have to compile Frescobaldi on our own. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
Graham Percival writes: > But nothing can happen without GUB getting under control. Nothing > can change in terms of the end-user GUIs -- but also once I leave > Glasgow in a few months, nothing will happen in terms of binary > releases at all. I'm not going to install ubuntu 10.04 when I'm > in Vancouver. At one point of time, we are going to settle on a permanent Ubuntu version. Probably "Grumpy Gazelle". -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 11:08:38AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > As far as I understand, in spite of the initial activities of core > LilyPond developers, LilyPad is basically an external application that > we just wrap and don't actively codevelop (meaning that its overlap with > actual LilyPond development nowadays is rather minimal). Note that lilypad-osx and lilypad-windows are completely different beasts. Different functionality, different GUI, different code base. > If you take a look at http://frescobaldi.org/download>, you'll find > that it is almost but not quite in a situation where we could use it on > all supported platforms when precompiled. It would be more challenging > to let GUB actually compile it (and dependencies). I'm not eager to double the download size of a lilypond binary. I'm not at all certain that we want to "bundle" an editor such as frescobaldi... but of course it's worth considering and discussing. > The problem is that we can't even cut out a coherent set of requirements > for keeping LilyPad supported, let alone start on something new. So it > would be clear that whoever was going to get interested in this project > would have to start with a _lot_ of fumbling in the dark with uncertain > outcome. But nothing can happen without GUB getting under control. Nothing can change in terms of the end-user GUIs -- but also once I leave Glasgow in a few months, nothing will happen in terms of binary releases at all. I'm not going to install ubuntu 10.04 when I'm in Vancouver. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 07:45:35AM -, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" > > To: "Colin Hall" > > >>Let's drop Lilypad. It's getting in the way of regular releases. > > > >Disagree. > > Disagree. I'm with Colin. I've already said that I can't see the > point of it on Windows: it's a cut-down version of notepad. If it's > the same on Mac, I don't see the value. It's different on mac. Not by a huge amount, but it *does* have more functionality. > >This is the single most important thing -- not just for osx, but > >for all binary building. However, AFAIK there is no help > >available for GUB. > > This would make a great "project" - like my make doc work. I don't > have the time now, but I reckon it's a case of finding a GUB > problem, fixing it, moving on. Be even better if there were a > "document what I've found" stage in there. Yes, pretty much. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
James writes: > Hello, > > On 5 March 2012 07:45, Phil Holmes wrote: >> - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" >> >> To: "Colin Hall" >> Let's drop Lilypad. It's getting in the way of regular releases. >>> >>> >>> Disagree. >>> >> >> Disagree. I'm with Colin. I've already said that I can't see the point of >> it on Windows: it's a cut-down version of notepad. If it's the same on Mac, >> I don't see the value. > > \PointAndClickOn > > That was a great feature for a 'mac user' like me. While I can run CLI > in terminal.app, getting another editor to work with pointAndClick was > fruitless and frustrating (at least for 2.12 and 2.13.x when I had my > mac). > > So I'm with Graham on this one. As far as I understand, in spite of the initial activities of core LilyPond developers, LilyPad is basically an external application that we just wrap and don't actively codevelop (meaning that its overlap with actual LilyPond development nowadays is rather minimal). The principal goal is setting up the user with an environment where he can start working right away. We could pick a different target for that purpose. Personally, I want to get to a state where Emacs will make a compellingly useful part of the music creation toolchain. But it would still not be something you would want to install as part of an installer for LilyPond. It's more like it would be nice to have some functionality looking for an installed version of Emacs and integrating with it. I think Frescobaldo might be a nice fit by now (as far as I understand, it does no longer require KDE, merely Qt). It does quite more than LilyPad, integrates nice with a GUI, and still does not obscure working with LilyPond, like the applications NtEd and similar do. If you take a look at http://frescobaldi.org/download>, you'll find that it is almost but not quite in a situation where we could use it on all supported platforms when precompiled. It would be more challenging to let GUB actually compile it (and dependencies). A perspective for delivering it as an integrated part of installers for those platforms where we have to offer a complete bundle due to a lack of sane packaging systems. Oh, by the way: any of the OSX users have an idea what is up with Fink? I see http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/browse.php?summary=lilypond> lilypond2.12.2-1GNU Music Typesetter lilypond-devel 2.13.5-1GNU Music Typesetter Which is not exactly impressive. But I am digressing. The point I wanted to make is that if one can cut out a coherent set of requirements, it might be possible to get people from the Frescobaldi community involved, and challenged into making MacOSX work if that's a precondition for getting Frescobaldi into our installers. The problem is that we can't even cut out a coherent set of requirements for keeping LilyPad supported, let alone start on something new. So it would be clear that whoever was going to get interested in this project would have to start with a _lot_ of fumbling in the dark with uncertain outcome. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
Hello, On 5 March 2012 07:45, Phil Holmes wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" > > To: "Colin Hall" > >>> Let's drop Lilypad. It's getting in the way of regular releases. >> >> >> Disagree. >> > > Disagree. I'm with Colin. I've already said that I can't see the point of > it on Windows: it's a cut-down version of notepad. If it's the same on Mac, > I don't see the value. \PointAndClickOn That was a great feature for a 'mac user' like me. While I can run CLI in terminal.app, getting another editor to work with pointAndClick was fruitless and frustrating (at least for 2.12 and 2.13.x when I had my mac). So I'm with Graham on this one. -- -- James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
- Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" To: "Colin Hall" Let's drop Lilypad. It's getting in the way of regular releases. Disagree. Disagree. I'm with Colin. I've already said that I can't see the point of it on Windows: it's a cut-down version of notepad. If it's the same on Mac, I don't see the value. Let's replace Lilypad with a simple app that is a drop target and log window. Disagree. Ditto Resolving GUB build issues relating to Mac OS X targets. Not much progress here. I have cloned the GUB git on my Linux x86_32 and x86_64 machines but I haven't got past make bootstrap. I wouldn't mind some help with that. This is the single most important thing -- not just for osx, but for all binary building. However, AFAIK there is no help available for GUB. This would make a great "project" - like my make doc work. I don't have the time now, but I reckon it's a case of finding a GUB problem, fixing it, moving on. Be even better if there were a "document what I've found" stage in there. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: MacOS X development and support
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 12:36:13AM +, Colin Hall wrote: > > Development of code specific to the MacOS X platforms, especially > Lilypad, is slow. Yes-ish. We don't have a lot of osx-specific code, and unless there's plans to make lilypad-osx fancier, we don't really need any more code. > We don't have devs or bug squadders with access to Mac hardware to > verify new releases. You're more in touch with that side than me. > We don't need MacOS X developers. We just need someone to maintain the > MacOS X aspects of GUB and direct those devs who can help with > patches. This gets my vote. > Let's drop Lilypad. It's getting in the way of regular releases. Disagree. > Let's replace Lilypad with a simple app that is a drop target and log > window. Disagree. > Some things I am doing or could do in the future: > > Mac hardware to test new releases, specifically MacOS X PPC > 10.4.x. This is now a work in progress. I have an iMac Flat-Panel > (10.4 PPC G4) and promise of a PPC G5 tower for testing new releases. I think a single PPC machine is enough. > Establishing a circle of Lilypond MacOS users that I can coordinate to > verify specific aspects of new releases. I have started on this and > have the following users signed up: Sounds like a great plan! > Resolving GUB build issues relating to Mac OS X targets. Not much > progress here. I have cloned the GUB git on my Linux x86_32 and x86_64 > machines but I haven't got past make bootstrap. I wouldn't mind some > help with that. This is the single most important thing -- not just for osx, but for all binary building. However, AFAIK there is no help available for GUB. I can give quick answers to GUB questions that I know the answer to, but I'm not willing to spend a great deal of time debugging it. I spent 100+ hours doing that in the fall of 2009; I consider that I've paid my dues. > Finally, some specific questions: > > Does GUB work? Yes-ish. It works on my desktop when I boot into lilydev 10.04. It does not work on my desktop in my usual ubuntu 11.10, which means that I can't use my desktop for anything important while GUB is compiling. Some developers can run GUB on lilydev. Others can't. No pattern has emerged in this yet, nor has anybody wanted to get into it. My initial guess is that it would take me 2-10 hours to get GUB to compile on ubuntu 11.10. To estimate how long it would take somebody else, multiply those numbers by whatever factor you think is appropriate. That's not very encouraging, but *somebody* needs to do this at some point. I'm not going to keep ubuntu 10.04 around forever. > Is GUB used to produce the Lilypond releases for all platforms, or is > it only used to create some of them? All platforms, plus the official regression test comparisons, plus the official documentation. > Which develops have access to MacOS X hardware? Not me. > Is it possible to verify Mac OS X x86 using a VM? I doubt it; apple doesn't like their OSes inside VMs (IIRC it's actually expressedly forbidden in their EULA), but even if that was possible, it would likely only be osx-x86 running on top of osx-x86 hardware. > Finally, I can see me having a couple of Macs here to test releases, a > working GUB install for resolving build issues, and a few keen Mac > users who verify fixes on Mac plaforms that I don't have to > hand. Getting to that point will be a chunk of work. I have an inkling > that others have tried to do this too, and given up. Focus your efforts on GUB. And yes, everybody who's gotten the latest make bootstrap error has given up. > I don't want to set out in that direction unless it is something > that the dev community support and that I have a reasonable > chance of success. As long as you don't give up, you *will* succeed eventually. What "eventually" means depends on your existing knowledge of unix build systems and how much other aid you get. But again: this problem isn't going to go away unless somebody tackles it. GUB is the weakest link in our development chain. Bringing it under control would be a great step forward. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
