On 8/1/21, 10:21 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development"
<lilypond-devel-bounces+carl.d.sorensen+digest=gmail....@gnu.org on behalf of
lilypond-de...@gnu.org> wrote:
> For me, personally, I'd prefer to see us follow up with either Marnen's
or Jaques's work (they may actually be very similar -- I'm not sure) so we can
get installable .app bundles, not just installed binaries. Installable app
bundles make it very easy to use different versions of LilyPond in Frescobaldi.
Can you explain? Just extracting different versions of the binaries
produced by the above system will work just fine. IIRC you only need to
adjust the paths in Frescobaldi, right?
I suppose that I can have different name binaries in my bin folder, with a
different name for each version. As far as I know the binaries are generally
installed to some folder other than Applications (I don't remember where it
ended up when I tested it.
With the app bundle, I can rename the app bundle, and all of the necessary bin
files are in each .app bundle. I don't have to worry about what is the
appropriate system path. It's possible that it's no more difficult with your
binaries, rather than the .app bundles. It's just not my standard process.
GUB produces .app bundles, so that's what I'm used to using.
The other thing that I thought tha .app bundles provided is built-in proper
versions of all the necessary utilities, so I don't need to worry about clashes
with improper versions of utilities. I haven't actually run into any problems
with clashes, but I also haven't tried multiple lilypond binaries with
different names on my system -- I've just used different app bundles.
I'm an old dog, but not so old that I can't learn new tricks. Maybe I just
need to learn new tricks and your method is perfectly sufficient. If so,
please let me know.
Thanks,
Carl
