Re: makefile changes for lilypond shared lib

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> Wed, 26 May 2004 11:23:38 +0200, tu a dit : 
> 
>  > Nicolas Sceaux writes:
>  >> I was experimenting this week end with lilypond called directly from
>  >> scheme (without using lilypond-bin).
> 
>  > That's interesting.  If you want I can help with install rules, but we
>  > should figure out what to put in the library, and how to install
>  > lilypond-bin.  LilyPond as a library of some sort is something we
>  > definately want, in the long term.
> 
> As it is now, all is fine for me, I can try little hacks.
> [Actually, I've sent that to the list as a note for later. I once did
> these changes a first time several months ago as I was experimenting a
> #{ ... #} implementation(!!!), but forgot/loose everything since then,
> thus this reminder.]
> 
> However, if you want me to try to go on and polish lily-as-a-lib, I'll
> do that.

On 2nd thought, I think it's a worthwhile thing to pursue. IIRC, the
thing that bothered me most with libtool was the fact that it replaces
binaries with scripts. However, I haven't had any problems with it
lately, and debugging GUILE (which is libtooled) seems to work just
fine.

There are 3 things:

* Turning  lily into a library. This means that the C++ containing
  main() should  go in a separate subdirectory.

* Compiling lily as a shared library, probably easiest with libtool.

  The support should be switched on from configure --enable-shared,
  and if switched on, any library (compiled with
  stepmake/library-*.make) also should become a shared library.

* Working with GUILE, to make sure that the LilyPond library can
  loaded dynamically, and gets neatly packaged into a module. I'm not
  sure how to go about that.  


-- 

 Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen