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