[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 17:00:08 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:

>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
>>>>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
>>>>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
>>>> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration
>>>> one has to make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'.  It
>>>> would be nice to have it, so one does not have to go to the site and
>>>> download it by hand.  With MacPorts, one would get it all
>>>> automatically when updating the packages.
>>> Well, building the documentation is not trivial.  It is certainly
>>> doable within MacPorts; however, the Portfile isn't set up for that,
>>> and I guess it would add a lot of additional dependencies.
>> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
>> but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
>> everything you distribute.
> I think it suffices to have it provided, not necessarily in a specific
> main distribution. These days, Internet should suffice.

It doesn't matter what you think when the conditions are spelled out
clearly in the GPL.

> MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and the
> binary installer, so the latter can have just the docs without the
> stuff required to build it.

Unless I am mistaken we are talking about the documentation being
completely absent.  Which is legitimate but unfortunate.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]