On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:00:43PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > lilyp...@umpquanet.com writes: > > > Forgive me, I don't mean to be evasive. The official FreeBSD > > ports tree includes only 2.14.2 at present (as the print/lilypond > > port). Given that a call for testers was made recently, I > > decided to create a port framework for FreeBSD so that I can > > track frequent upgrades of pre-release development versions using > > BSD's convenient ports system. > > So what is the difference as compared to the version on the LilyPond > download page? What makes the download for FreeBSD that we offer less > desirable?
FreeBSD users like to compile from source. A "port" is a (relatively) thin wrapper around configure && make && make install. In addition to doing the actual compile, the "port" also checks&installs any dependencies. My brother (freebsd) likes to brag that his new laptop can compile KDE and firefox in less than 12 hours or something. I personally don't see the point -- CPU-specific compiler tweaks don't make all that much difference to most software -- but hey, live and let live, right? In linux-land, Gentoo is the closest thing. > Those are serious questions. If the package we are offering for FreeBSD > is not in a state where it is what a FreeBSD user could actually use, > then we need to change the offering, or can stop wasting the time and > energy for providing this version. Patches to GUB will be thoughtfully considered. As far as I'm concerned, let sleeping GUBs lie. > The question is: why not use the already compiled package for FreeBSD > provided on <URL:http://www.lilypond.org/development.html>? Technical reasons? not many. Cultural reasons? they don't like binaries. > > Ports are a standardized way of installing any of nearly 24,000 > > different software packages on many BSD systems (FreeBSD, NetBSD, > > etc.) while managing their dependencies, and managing upgrades. > > What does the package offered on our download page do in contrast? Our binaries provide a ready-to-run system (i.e. 15 seconds to install the binary, vs. 30-120 minutes to compile lilypond plus dependencies), but require a non-standardized way to install (i.e. the shell script) and uninstall (i.e. the uninstall-lilypond script) lilypond. > Remember: I don't use FreeBSD. Only you can answer this question and > thus tell us in what way what we are offering currently is a waste of > time and effort. Nah, I can answer the question. :) Relax. He's being a nice freebsd person, and what he's doing will be understood by other freebsd people. It's nothing that the lilypond developers should be concerned about. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
