Re: lilypond 2.15.33 available as a FreeBSD port

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:00:43PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> address@hidden 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