Re: Binaries of LilyPond 2.23.5 with Guile 2.2

[Federico Bruni]

On Wed, Dec 8 2021 at 21:25:47 +0100, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> 
wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, dem 08.12.2021 um 01:43 +0100 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> >  On Fri, Dec 3 2021 at 19:17:19 +0100, Jonas Hahnfeld via 
> > Discussions on
> >  LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> wrote:
> >  > here are the binaries of LilyPond 2.23.5 with Guile 2.2, created
> >  > exactly with the scripts contained in the official source tar:
> >  > https://gitlab.com/hahnjo/lilypond/-/packages/4049140
> >  > (For now I've published them on my repo, but I can also add them 
> > to
> >  > the official one and link it from the GitLab release if people 
> > think so.)
> >
> >  Hi Jonas
> >
> >  I'd like to use these binaries (when they become official) in
> >  Frescobaldi flatpak package, which bundles lilypond stable and
> >  unstable. Frescobaldi flatpak is available for x86_64 and aarch64, 
> > so I
> >  would need also the aarch64/ARM64 binary of lilypond.
> >
> >  I know you want to build natively and you don't have an ARM64 
> > machine
> >  to build it.
> >  Any chance you can use for example Github runners to build them?
> >
> >  
> > https://github.community/t/ask-about-github-hosted-runners-arm64-platform-support/167483
> >  
> > https://docs.github.com/en/actions/hosting-your-own-runners/about-self-hosted-runners#supported-architectures-and-operating-systems-for-self-hosted-runners
>
> As discussed in that thread, there are no AArch64 runners available on
> GitHub, we'd have to provide them ourselves AFAICS. I'm not sure this
> makes sense... How do you provide AArch64 binaries right now? If this
> is an extension, I'd like to postpone this until we're actually on 
> this
> new infrastructure.

LilyPond is built from source on Flathub infrastructure.
If you click on the green check here:
https://github.com/flathub/org.frescobaldi.Frescobaldi/commits/master

you'll see the recent builds. This is for aarch64:
https://flathub.org/builds/#/builders/51/builds/5253

Yes, it's not Github.