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).
A further look into PureDarwin's website shows that many of the Darwin
utilities in fact link to closed-source Apple libraries.
https://github.com/PureDarwin/PureDarwin/wiki/Purity
For example, gettext links to CoreFoundation and pango links to 6 proprietary
libraries.
So probably we can't even ship a command-line-only version of LilyPond without
having linking ability to OSX.
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
