I made one such distribution, and even sent to a listing of its contents, remember? I think I put it into /usr/local/lilypond or /usr/local/lilypond-devel. Which location would you prefer? OK. I am
gcc8 doesn’t build in MacPorts on Catalina, at least it didn’t build for me on Thursday. There was a MacPorts release on Friday, but I haven’t tried it yet. Maybe the problem has been fixed. I
This is irrelevant. To build a distributable `mpkg', you have to install MacPorts with a *different* prefix (i.e., not `/opt/local') so that it doesn't interfere with the `standard' MacPorts a user
if GCC 9 would work. gcc8 failed to build on MacPorts on Catalina on the latest Xcode. Rather than try to understand why, I switched to gcc9 and it seems to work fine.
This is good, but I think GCC 8 was kept deliberately as it was unclear if GCC 9 would work. It is only for cross builds. Me too: The MacPorts version seems to work if installing before the update t
I could, but it is quite unreasonable to expect Lilypond users to build from source code, especially having to build MacPorts from source as well. It isn't very hard to do, but it does take several h
I was able to build Lilypond on Catalina, using the newest Xcode. MacPorts does not yet have a distribution for Catalina, so I built it from source as well. It seems to work fine. I did have to make
That's great news! Can you provide us instructions so we can share them with other users? Excuse my Phone spellcheck I was able to build Lilypond on Catalina, using the newest Xcode. MacPorts does no
On 10/8/19, 7:34 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Karlin High" <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=address@hidden on behalf of address@hidden> wrote: 10.15? Lilypond so that it can be used from now
We hope you can solve this issue. It is worth the work of updating Lilypond so that it can be used from now on the new Apple computers and the old ones that have been updated to the new operating sys
Am Montag, den 07.10.2019, 19:23 +0000 schrieb Carl Sorensen: via lilypond-devel" < packaged. Upon bit removed in think there is a reason to eliminate this target. support Unless some PowerPC user wa
... well, there are still a lot of computers out there using those old MacOS versions... While MacPorts would be an alternative to get a working LilyPond installation on those old targets I think we
Thanks, I’m well aware of the licensing issues, and they’ve already been discussed in this thread. I have no intention of doing anything that breaks any license agreements. Exactly. But why are w
<https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross#packaging-the-sdk> "Please ensure you have read and understood the Xcode license terms before continuing." Anything that says "Download XCode, dissect like s
Here is my summary of what has been discussed regarding MacOS builds over the last couple months. I feel like we are largely rehashing the same questions/answers. 1. Lilypond’s current build system
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 6:54 PM Marnen Laibow-Koser <address@hidden> wrote: [...] ...or not. On rereading the license agreement, I see that there are hardware restrictions on the SDK that had escaped
The way I had been approaching an addition of 64-bit Darwin to GUB was that, due to the Xcode restrictions, on non-Apple hardware GUB would compile all non-Darwin targets and simply ignore requests f