Re: Lilypond is now on Homebrew for macOS Mojave or higher (Intel or M1)

[Jefferson Felix]

> Would it be conceivable to do Homebrew builds also for (odd-numbered)
development versions of LilyPond?

According to homebrew rules, only stable versions are accepted. And really,
there is no * -devel package in the homebrew repository. About that, I
believe we can patch the formula until the next stable version is
released. However, there is a build from HEAD option (`brew --HEAD`), which
is even being implemented in lilypond formula (
https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/86490).

Em ter., 5 de out. de 2021 às 18:20, Lukas-Fabian Moser <lfm@gmx.de>
escreveu:

> [Jean]
> > What kind of next version, next minor of
> > current stable, i.e. 2.22.2, or next
> > stable release, 2.24?
> Which leads me to ask:
>
> @Jefferson: Would it be conceivable to do Homebrew builds also for
> (odd-numbered) development versions of LilyPond? LilyPond tends to have
> a conservative policy regarding stable releases (although the six year
> hiatus between 2.18.2 in March 2014 and 2.20.0 in March 2020 might be
> considered extreme even by LilyPond's standards). But at the same time,
> LilyPond development procedures make sure that today, Master never
> really breaks: Every patch in master gets a thorough review and, equally
> important, is tested against an extensive suite of regression tests.
> Because of this, LilyPond master is kept always in a working condition,
> and the development releases (which are cut from git master from time to
> time) can be expected to (although they are not guaranteed to) allow
> production-quality work. In fact, many LilyPond users routinely use the
> development versions, as they are the only option (short of
> do-it-yourself building) to make use of new features in the often long
> time between stable releases. So if it would be possible to do not only
> a "lilypond" package but also a (more frequently updated)
> "lilypond-devel" package, this would match the use practice of many
> LilyPond users even better.
>
> As for the underlying question, I think a modified version message if
> LilyPond is running Guile2 (or Guile3, for that matter) would be enough.
> (And I agree with J.F. that this message should only mention Guile, not
> Homebrew.) If I understand Jonas's remark correctly, it should make no
> difference if this is done at compile time via C++ #ifdef GUILEV2 (as in
> Jean's proposal) or at runtime via Scheme cond-expand, right?
>
> Lukas
>


-- 
---
Jefferson dos Santos Felix