Re: packaging lilypond as a docker container?

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> On 1/20/20, 2:38 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Han-Wen Nienhuys"
> <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=address@hidden on behalf of
> address@hidden> wrote:
>
>     What is the state of our binary releases? We currently have to
>     maintain GUB, and GUB builds are quite slow. Our apple story is even more
>     complicated, because of the Apple hardware requirement.
>
> We currently have a user who has figured out how to take a MacPorts
> build and turn it into an application bundle.  I think that we are in
> the final stages of having that build ready to go.
>     
>     Wouldn't it be much more simple to build lilypond as a Docker application?
>
> I don't know anything about building lilypond as a Docker application.
> If it were possible to execute a docker application from the command
> line in MacOS, then I think that would meet my requirements.  I need
> to be able to have multiple binaries installed so that I can run
> multiple versions from Frescobaldi.
>     
>     Then we could just offer a single binary to download, which windows/mac
>     users can run. We don't have to cross-compile the app which further 
> reduces
>     build times. The containerized app is still hermetic, so we can be in full
>     control of the dependency versions
>
> As far as I can see right now, the time it takes to complete a GUB
> build is not that important.  But the complexity of the GUB build
> system is hugely important.  It's a big obstacle to getting
> contributors going.

Contributors don't need to bother with GUB.  GUB is just used internally
for cranking out releases.  Nobody uses GUB when testing: instead
LilyDev is being used.  No crosscompilation, instead cross execution.

> How difficult would it be to set up a build environment for making the
> Docker application?  A second major obstacle to developing is the
> difficulty of setting up a build environment for lilypond, especially
> in Windows and MacOS.  The recommended way to build now is via a
> virtual machine, with the extra challenges of trying to maintain the
> VM image.  If the process of making the Docker application would also
> allow a simple set up for a build environment in non-Linux machines, I
> think that would be a huge win.

Not sure where this is getting, but it might just be a case of beer.
Actually, more like a bottle of beer.

-- 
David Kastrup