TBH, you'd probably find it far easier to install a
Linux VM on your Windows host, and compile the problematic score on that.
I've done both, and what I suggest here is what I would do.
I also used Sibelius - for my college course.
I always now use LilyPond in preference.
-- Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:48
PM
Subject: Re: Question: Cross
compilation
Chris Yate <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi
Phil, > > Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd
already come to, but that > it seemed such a ludicrous state of
affairs that _somebody_ must have a > better solution.
If you
can find _any_ free software project requiring a number of free software
compile- and runtime dependencies that does not invest a really big
amount of time into maintaining a separate Windows port, you might want
to look how they are doing it.
Thanks David. If the answer to my question is "no, there's no other way",
that's still a useful answer! :)
To be fair, I think the projects that do work across many systems are
usually not using C++, but some other language that's more portable. Probably
something interpreted, or running on a VM. And of course, Lilypond has a
bunch of dependencies, TexMf, Guile and the like, which may be more of a
portability problem than /our/ code.
In contrast, the LilyPond Windows releases appear at the
same time as other releases and require no extra manual effort (until
things go wrong, of course). That's
pretty good, actually.
Agreed!
Not being able to do native/online compilations by
anybody wanting to is bad. Yes. Fixes to GUB (possibly even
just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it already)
are of course welcome
GUB is a really good idea. But obviously
it's not great having to compile the whole thing to change a source
repository... If its authors
followed the mentality of Gnu autoconf tools, you'd expect to be able to pass
some arguments in. I'll look into
it a little.
Chris
|