Re: [PoC] EXPERIMENTAL binaries of LilyPond 2.22.1

[Thomas Morley]

Am Do., 13. Mai 2021 um 22:47 Uhr schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
Discussions on LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>:
>
> Before starting: These builds are not official, highly experimental,
> and not meant for "production" installations. They use Guile 2.2 and
> are slower, might not compile all scores or break some advanced feature
> that you might use. The binaries might eat your files or do other bad
> things to your computer - you've been warned!
>
> ... That said, you are of course very welcome to read on:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I revived my efforts from last year to work on a new way to build
> binaries and possibly replacing GUB. For details on the ideas, see
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2020-03/msg00337.html
> and the explanations at https://github.com/hahnjo/lilypond-binaries
>
> After some work, I built binaries from the released sources of LilyPond
> 2.22.1 for
>  * Linux (compiled on CentOS 7; tested on Arch, CentOS 8, Ubuntu 18.04)
>  * FreeBSD (compiled on FreeBSD 11.4; works on FreeBSD 12.2 and 13.0)
>  * macOS (compiled on macOS 10.15 (x86_64); hopefully works on Big Sur)
>  * mingw / Windows (x86_64, meaning 64-bit; I hope it still works...)
> and uploaded them next to the scripts used to create them:
> https://github.com/hahnjo/lilypond-binaries/releases/tag/2021-05-13
> For each platform, there is one "full" package that includes wrappers
> and interpreters for the scripts; the non-"full" packages expect the
> system to provide python3 for using the scripts. The packages are plain
> tar / zip archives, just extract them wherever you want and use the
> executables in the bin/ directory.
>
> Feel free to give them a try, but please keep in mind the limitations:
> Guile 2.2 and no compiled bytecode [1] means startup will take around 3
> seconds. Also I'd like to note that the scripts are a proof-of-concept,
> especially the choice of shell scripts earned me some criticism. If the
> ideas are worthwhile to follow, I'm open to considering Python as long
> as we can avoid some problems that I see in GUB's design.
>
> Cheers
> Jonas
>
>
> 1: I tried to include bytecode, but LilyPond 2.22.1 doesn't know how to
> load it. If you're curious, you can get it on your system by compiling
> a dummy score with GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=1 set on the command line. If
> there's sufficient interest, I could make a build of 2.23.x with it...

Hi Jonas,

many thanks for your hard work!

I'm testing with Linux 64-bit after having done GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=1
One thing I stumpled across by accident was:

\version "2.22.1"

\relative c'' {
  bes4^"ऌ"
}

With this example it's a lot, up to 25%, slower than with vanilla lilypond.

I'll continue testing using this binary for every days work ....

Chees,
  Harm