On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 08:14, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> You mean a stand-alone package that can be easily distributed, >>> right? Since MacPorts does provide a 64bit version with the >>> `lilypond-devel' package. >> >> Yes, thanks for the correction. The easiest way right now will >> probably be with port mdmg, but I want to see if I can do better.
Is there anything specifically lacking with mdmg/mpkg other than their current size? > I think that the resulting bundle size of the `port mdmg' command can > be greatly reduced if you improve the lilypond-devel package > dependencies (i.e., adjusting the packages needed for building and > running). Unfortunately, I don't have enough time right now to do it > by myself; additionally, I'm not a MacOS user at all :-) I will post exact details later today once I have access to my computer again, but I have been working on trimming the package size and I believe my latest results have roughly halved the size compared to what is in MacPorts master. The next hurdle I am about to attempt is contacting some of the MacPorts dev community to inquire about next steps. The next leap to be made is to figure out if GCC can be excluded from the package as it (and its dependencies) are currently providing the bulk of the package size. The issue is that gcc is an implicit dependency declared through the compiler selection feature; currently it seems that the compiler is added as a “lib” dependency when really it should be a “build” dependency (i.e., needed for producing the package but not distributed as part of it). > Werner > > _______________________________________________ > 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
