macOS 64-bit

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
126 messages Options
1234567
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 8:43 AM Federico Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Github mirror was set up by two persons who stopped contributing to
> LilyPond a few years ago.
> You may ask them to add you as admin.
>

Unfortunately there appears to be no way of telling who the owners are from
the GitHub UI. If you know who they are, I’ll certainly contact them.  Or
maybe I’ll open an issue on the repo and see who gets notified.


> I've put Janek in Cc.
>
> Thanks.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
In reply to this post by Jahrme Risner
Hi everyone!  In working on 64-bit Mac builds of lilypond, I notice, to my
surprise, that lilypond and lilypond-devel exist in MacPorts for 2.18.2 and
2.19.83 respectively.  I'm experimenting with these builds (as well as
other approaches), but does anyone know anything about them?  Any pitfalls
I should be aware of?

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 6:06 PM Jahrme Risner <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...]

> > I think this is poor advice. IMHO MacPorts is very hard to work with (as
> an
> > end user) compared to Homebrew, and I haven't seen anyone using MacPorts
> on
> > their Mac in well over a decade. It seems to pop up mostly in developer
> > communities like this one (and that of Inkscape), but it's not popular in
> > the wider Mac community.
>
> I would be interested to hear (specifically) what about MacPorts makes it
> hard to work with compared to Homebrew. Having used Homebrew for several
> years
> but recently working with MacPorts (in part because of LilyPond) I have not
> found MacPorts to be "more difficult" than Homebrew other than perhaps the
> installation. This is not to be dismissive of any difficulties you have
> encountered, I simply want to understand better.
>
[...]

I've been experimenting with LilyPond builds over the past few days, and
doing a good deal of research about Homebrew and MacPorts, so I feel like I
can answer this question at least a little better now.  Besides the fact
that I like its UI less than that of Homebrew, I like its philosophy less.
AFAIK, Homebrew tries to work with the system libraries on macOS as much as
possible, whereas MacPorts tries to ignore them and build its own tree as
much as possible.  This has the effect that Homebrew feels to me like it
belongs on my system and plays nicely with it, whereas MacPorts feels like
an ill-behaved guest that wants to take over the world (and that's probably
the source of my other remarks about duplicated crap, as it takes a lot of
time and disk space to install things that already more or less exist in
macOS).

That said, I do understand that there are certain aspects of MacPorts'
behavior that make it advantageous on a build box, so I've been
experimenting with both MacPorts and Homebrew on the Travis environments
that I've been using to test Mac builds of LilyPond.  But my latest
research on MacPorts, and reminding myself how it works, has reinforced the
idea that on most end-users' machines, it's a bad idea and Homebrew is the
better choise.  (I might try to set up a local build VM with MacPorts to
keep it from taking over the rest of my machine, but the easiest
option—Docker—doesn't support Mac guests, and I haven't done the research
about other VM solutions yet.)

 [...]

> Second, one of the consistent issues which Travis CI would not be able to
> solve is the dependence on LaTeX (texlive). There is not, AFAIK, *any*
> elegant
> solution to the usage of texlive on macOS. Homebrew, which is the package
> manager used for macOS builds on Travis CI, has chosen to completely remove
> texlive and all[*] related packages.
>         * There may be a few packages that have found workarounds,
>           but if so they are few and far-between.
> As such, from my reading, the most common workaround to build and use
> Docker
> images inside of Travis CI to run texlive related programs which would add
> an
> extra level of complexity.
>

I can confirm that MacTeX appears to satisfy TeX dependencies.  It is
available as a Homebrew cask (in several versions, including BasicTeX) or
can be installed directly, so this shouldn't be an issue.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
[hidden email]
http://www.marnen.org
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Werner LEMBERG

> Hi everyone!  In working on 64-bit Mac builds of lilypond, I notice,
> to my surprise, that lilypond and lilypond-devel exist in MacPorts
> for 2.18.2 and 2.19.83 respectively.  I'm experimenting with these
> builds (as well as other approaches), but does anyone know anything
> about them?

I've never tried the `lilypond' port; the `lilypond-devel' port was
updated by me (and I still maintain it)

> Any pitfalls I should be aware of?

I don't think so.  All information is in the Portfile, I believe.

However, the package dependencies are not perfectly set up (and I
don't have time right now to work on it): The categorization into
needed build-only, run-only, and build-run packages is not fully
correct.  For directly using lilypond-devel this is of no importance,
but for creating binary tarballs it makes a big difference.


    Werner

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:10 PM Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > Hi everyone!  In working on 64-bit Mac builds of lilypond, I notice,
> > to my surprise, that lilypond and lilypond-devel exist in MacPorts
> > for 2.18.2 and 2.19.83 respectively.  I'm experimenting with these
> > builds (as well as other approaches), but does anyone know anything
> > about them?
>
> I've never tried the `lilypond' port; the `lilypond-devel' port was
> updated by me (and I still maintain it)


Oh, that’s good to know.


>
> > Any pitfalls I should be aware of?
>
> I don't think so.  All information is in the Portfile, I believe.
>
> However, the package dependencies are not perfectly set up (and I
> don't have time right now to work on it): The categorization into
> needed build-only, run-only, and build-run packages is not fully
> correct.  For directly using lilypond-devel this is of no importance,
> but for creating binary tarballs it makes a big difference.


Yes, I can believe that.  The ideal end result of this, of course, is a
binary .app bundle with no external dependencies.


>
>
>     Werner


Best,

>
> --
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:19 PM Marnen Laibow-Koser <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> Yes, I can believe that.  The ideal end result of this, of course, is a
> binary .app bundle with no external dependencies.
>

About that binary .app bundle: it looks like LilyPad is maintained and
built separately?  I found the instructions at
https://github.com/gperciva/lilypad/blob/master/macosx/README ; does anyone
know if they’re still accurate?

If so, this will probably be easier than I thought.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
In reply to this post by marnen
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 7:02 PM Marnen Laibow-Koser <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:48 PM Marnen Laibow-Koser <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hmm.  At this point I should probably stop speculating and set up a build
>> environment.  But I’m getting married in a month and am not committing to
>> any big projects before the wedding. :)
>>
>
> As I start to think about how to do this, it would be helpful for me to
> know where the current Mac build instructions and/or script are.  I’m
> assuming that lilypond.make in the GUB repo is where I should be
> looking...or is there a better place?
>

Small update here: I’ve been playing with Mac build environments on Travis
and Cirrus in order to understand the build process better, and I have just
gotten the folks at MacStadium to give us a free OSS account.  I’ve also
been reading about osxcross, which looks like it *might* do 64-bit builds
now, though I can’t be sure from the available info.

I haven’t had much time to devote to any of this lately, but hopefully I
can put more time into it sometime in the next couple of weeks.  The
process doesn’t actually look that hard, just time-consuming...

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Karlin High
On 7/8/2019 8:30 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> I’ve also been reading about osxcross, which looks like it *might* do 64-bit builds now, though I can’t be sure from the available info.

<https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk>
"Please ensure you have read and understood the Xcode license terms
before continuing."

Anything that says "Download XCode, dissect like so, copy this one piece
to your Linux system somewhere..." is likely a violation of Apple's
XCode Software License Agreement.

UNLESS the Linux is running in a Virtual Machine on Apple hardware.

Which MacStadium apparently can provide, with Mac Mini rental computers.
(aka "in the cloud.")

If this effort was completed, it sounds to me like non-Mac builds could
continue as normal. Then MacStadium gets used to produce the Mac builds.
Automation would be possible, with Travis or Cirrus. (About which I know
nothing but the names.)

My question here is, will this arrangement be satisfactory for the
people running the LilyPond build system? Phil Holmes? Anyone?

If not satisfactory, what would you like to see instead?
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:38 AM Karlin High <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/8/2019 8:30 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> > I’ve also been reading about osxcross, which looks like it *might* do
> 64-bit builds now, though I can’t be sure from the available info.
>
> <https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk>
> "Please ensure you have read and understood the Xcode license terms
> before continuing."
>
> Anything that says "Download XCode, dissect like so, copy this one piece
> to your Linux system somewhere..." is likely a violation of Apple's
> XCode Software License Agreement.
>
> UNLESS the Linux is running in a Virtual Machine on Apple hardware.


Thanks, I’m well aware of the licensing issues, and they’ve already been
discussed in this thread.  I have no intention of doing anything that
breaks any license agreements.


>
> Which MacStadium apparently can provide, with Mac Mini rental computers.
> (aka "in the cloud.")
>
> If this effort was completed, it sounds to me like non-Mac builds could
> continue as normal. Then MacStadium gets used to produce the Mac builds.


Exactly.  But why are we rehashing all this now?


> Automation would be possible, with Travis or Cirrus. (About which I know
> nothing but the names.)


Then maybe go look up what they are?


>
> My question here is, will this arrangement be satisfactory for the
> people running the LilyPond build system? Phil Holmes? Anyone?
>
> If not satisfactory, what would you like to see instead?


Right now, I personally am most worried about getting a usable native
64-bit Mac build.  I’d *like* it to integrate with the existing build
system, but I don’t think that will be possible unless Apple changes its
license agreements, or unless we can run GUB on a Mac (which I seem to
recall hearing would likely be difficult and not a good use of our effort
right now).


> --
> Karlin High
> Missouri, USA


Best,

>
> --
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Werner LEMBERG

> Right now, I personally am most worried about getting a usable
> native 64-bit Mac build.

You mean a stand-alone package that can be easily distributed, right?
Since MacPorts does provide a 64bit version with the `lilypond-devel'
package.


    Werner

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Karlin High
In reply to this post by marnen
On 7/8/2019 9:43 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> Right now, I personally am most worried about getting a usable native
> 64-bit Mac build.

I am very glad you are working on this. There hadn't been much
discussion on Mac builds lately, so I thought a quick review was in
order. Sorry for any redundancy experienced.

There are several people in the LilyPond community that work mostly
alone on important parts of the project. Their capacity is not
unlimited. If a proposed change is going to affect their routines, it's
best to get their input and support for it as soon as possible. It's a
pity if someone puts lots of effort into something only to hear "Dead
end, this is not something we could live with."
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
In reply to this post by Werner LEMBERG
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:46 AM Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > Right now, I personally am most worried about getting a usable
> > native 64-bit Mac build.
>
> 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.  Regardless, I want a
stand-alone installer that doesn’t force the user into MacPorts.


>
>
>     Werner
>
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
In reply to this post by Karlin High
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:58 AM Karlin High <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/8/2019 9:43 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> > Right now, I personally am most worried about getting a usable native
> > 64-bit Mac build.
>
> I am very glad you are working on this. There hadn't been much
> discussion on Mac builds lately, so I thought a quick review was in
> order. Sorry for any redundancy experienced.
>
> There are several people in the LilyPond community that work mostly
> alone on important parts of the project. Their capacity is not
> unlimited. If a proposed change is going to affect their routines, it's
> best to get their input and support for it as soon as possible. It's a
> pity if someone puts lots of effort into something only to hear "Dead
> end, this is not something we could live with."
>

Their input is most welcome here, and I hope they will participate in this
discussion (I don’t know who they are, so can’t contact them directly).
However, the bottom line is this: we need a standalone 64-bit Mac build.
If they say they can’t live with a reasonable build process, let’s cross
that bridge when we come to it.  Meanwhile, I don’t want to borrow trouble.


--
> Karlin High
> Missouri, USA
>
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Werner LEMBERG
In reply to this post by marnen

>> 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.

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 :-)


    Werner

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:14 AM Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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.
>
> 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 :-)


Right, you mentioned that earlier.  Additionally, I want to see what
happens if I do a non-MacPorts build.  The MacStadium environment that we
now have access to will let me play around with this without cluttering up
my own Mac with a lot of crap (although I *could* run a VM locally...).


>
>
>     Werner


Best,

>
> --
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Karlin High
Karlin High <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 7/8/2019 8:30 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>> I’ve also been reading about osxcross, which looks like it *might*
>> do 64-bit builds now, though I can’t be sure from the available
>> info.
>
> <https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk>
> "Please ensure you have read and understood the Xcode license terms
> before continuing."
>
> Anything that says "Download XCode, dissect like so, copy this one
> piece to your Linux system somewhere..." is likely a violation of
> Apple's XCode Software License Agreement.
>
> UNLESS the Linux is running in a Virtual Machine on Apple hardware.
>
> Which MacStadium apparently can provide, with Mac Mini rental
> computers. (aka "in the cloud.")
>
> If this effort was completed, it sounds to me like non-Mac builds
> could continue as normal. Then MacStadium gets used to produce the Mac
> builds. Automation would be possible, with Travis or Cirrus. (About
> which I know nothing but the names.)
>
> My question here is, will this arrangement be satisfactory for the
> people running the LilyPond build system? Phil Holmes? Anyone?

What does this have to do with the people running the build system?
It's a different setup on different hardware.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Jahrme Risner
In reply to this post by Werner LEMBERG
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 08:14, Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Werner LEMBERG

>> 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.

Excellent!

> The next hurdle I am about to attempt is contacting some of the
> MacPorts dev community to inquire about next steps.

I'm the maintainer of the Portfile of `lilypond-devel'.  Please send
patches to me.  And please send more generic questions to

  [hidden email]   ;

the people on the list are quite responsive usually.

> 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.

Certainly, since gcc is only a build dependency and not needed at
runtime.  Maybe other packages must be fixed, too...

> 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).

Yeah, you are getting to the fine details I was talking about.


    Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Jahrme Risner
> I'm the maintainer of the Portfile of `lilypond-devel'. Please send
> patches to me. And please send more generic questions to
>
> [hidden email] ;
>
> the people on the list are quite responsive usually.

Would it be better to email the “users” list about something like setting the compiler as a build-phase dependency? From the descriptions online I had planned on posting to the “dev” list for something like that.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

Werner LEMBERG
>> [...] please send more generic questions to
>>
>> [hidden email] ;
>>
>> the people on the list are quite responsive usually.
>
> Would it be better to email the “users” list about something like
> setting the compiler as a build-phase dependency?  From the
> descriptions online I had planned on posting to the “dev” list for
> something like that.

I don't think so.  As far as I can see, the users list is for Portfile
maintainers also, while the dev list is mainly for the development of
MacPorts itself.

Maybe this is a wrong description.  However, until now all my
questions on the users list w.r.t. Portfiles were answered quickly and
not categorized as unsuitable to the list.


    Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: macOS 64-bit

marnen
In reply to this post by marnen
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM Marnen Laibow-Koser <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:14 AM Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> 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.
>>
>> 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 :-)
>
>
> Right, you mentioned that earlier.  Additionally, I want to see what
> happens if I do a non-MacPorts build.  The MacStadium environment that we
> now have access to will let me play around with this without cluttering up
> my own Mac with a lot of crap (although I *could* run a VM locally...).
>

Update: with wedding stuff, I haven’t had time to devote to this, but with
Mac OS Catalina coming out this has become more urgent, as Catalina removes
32-bit support altogether.  I’m gonna try to spend some time on this in the
next few days, and would welcome help from anyone interested.  I’ll post
info for the MacStadium environment once I set it up.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser [hidden email] http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail
Mobile
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
1234567