On 2/25/19, 5:23 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
<lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu....@gnu.org on behalf of d...@gnu.org>
wrote:
Karlin High <karlinh...@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm still thinking it would be ideal if the macOS LilyPond could be
> built as it now is. That's the least work for LilyPond build people,
> and probably the best result for macOS users.
The question was not whether this was the best way but whether it was at
all legal. I'd certainly want us to have a MacOSX installer that just
falls out with as little per-version human effort as it and other
installers do now. If Apple says "no" to using Xcode for that purpose,
then we cannot argue our way out of that but there may be other
development environments that we can make use of. That's why I
suggested looking what is available for Darwin (I think OpenDarwin at
some point of time closed shop but that was some time ago and I haven't
followed developments).
I checked in with Darwin. Currently the unofficial successor to OpenDarwin
(which closed shop) is PureDarwin[1]. PureDarwin is working on an SDK, but has
no time frame for providing it.
I then hopped over to a reference provided by PureDarwin that describes the
relationship between Darwin (the command-line processor and base operating
system of OSX) and OSX[2]. Darwin *is* open source, but the other pieces of
OSX are not.
Based on my reading of this page and the porting instructions available at the
developer.apple.com website, I believe we can use the open-source version of
Darwin to create the command-line version of LilyPond. I believe that the only
reason we need to use the OSX SDK is to create the graphical front end
application in lilypond.app. Now, that is precisely what the typical Mac user
wants to see, so it would not be particularly user-friendly to distribute
lilypond without the graphical editor. But I would be surprised if any
long-term lilypond user on the Mac were using the bundled app. The bundled app
is just too basic for really getting work done.
So I think one possibility in providing a functional lilypond 64-bit executable
for OSX is to only provide a command-line version, with a pointer to use it
with Frescobaldi. Not ideal, but perhaps better than saying "build your own".
Carl
1. http://www.puredarwin.org/
2.https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/background/background.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002848-TPXREF101
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
