GUB progress?

Folks, we had some good progress with GUB. However, in the last few weeks the development stalled, which is not good. I thus propose the following. * The pull requests as described in https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2019-01/msg00221.html should finally be applied.

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On Feb 23, 2019, at 5:11 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > I have no idea how best to go after creating an OSX 64-bit binary in gub. I > think we can neither provide the Xcode binaries nor find a link that will > allow gub to download the binaries. It may be that the only way forward on > OSX

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/19, 5:13 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Hans Åberg" wrote: > On 23 Feb 2019, at 22:26, Karlin High wrote: > > Full quote: > > " > we use GUB (see ) to build binaries, not Xcode. We link

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

> On 23 Feb 2019, at 22:26, Karlin High wrote: > > Full quote: > > " > we use GUB (see ) to > build binaries, not Xcode. We link against > > > > which is based on

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/19, 3:34 PM, "Karlin High" wrote: On 2/23/2019 4:11 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > I have no idea how best to go after creating an OSX 64-bit binary in gub. I think we can neither provide the Xcode binaries nor find a link that will allow gub to download the binaries.

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/2019 4:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote: I was not able to figure out whether we or anybody else even can legally distribute our MacOSX binaries. If we can figure that out for a newer version, we certainly should do so rather than relying on having done everything right in the past. After

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > On 2/23/2019 4:11 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: >> I have no idea how best to go after creating an OSX 64-bit binary in >> gub. I think we can neither provide the Xcode binaries nor find a >> link that will allow gub to download the binaries. > > In research, I've found about

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

v.villen...@gmail.com writes: > On 2019/02/22 22:11:58, dak wrote: >> There is some fundamental confusion here. A stencil expression is a > list. It >> never satisfies the ly:stencil? predicate and always satisfies the > pair? >> predicate. > > Oh, I see. I mixed up "unsmob" and "eval": a

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/2019 4:11 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: I have no idea how best to go after creating an OSX 64-bit binary in gub. I think we can neither provide the Xcode binaries nor find a link that will allow gub to download the binaries. In research, I've found about 12 different links with info on

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/23/19, 2:39 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup" wrote: Karlin High writes: > On 2/14/2019 4:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> It may well be that the licensing conditions of any such SDK spell >> end-of-line for MacOSX support since Apple is allergic to

Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)

On 2019/02/22 22:11:58, dak wrote: There is some fundamental confusion here. A stencil expression is a list. It never satisfies the ly:stencil? predicate and always satisfies the pair? predicate. Oh, I see. I mixed up "unsmob" and "eval": a stencil expression becomes a Stencil when it’s

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

Karlin High writes: > On 2/14/2019 4:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> It may well be that the licensing conditions of any such SDK spell >> end-of-line for MacOSX support since Apple is allergic to the GPL-v3. >> It's conceivable that an OpenDarwin SDK without graphics support (after >> all, we

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

On 2/14/2019 4:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote: It may well be that the licensing conditions of any such SDK spell end-of-line for MacOSX support since Apple is allergic to the GPL-v3. It's conceivable that an OpenDarwin SDK without graphics support (after all, we don't really need it, even if it