Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[David Kastrup]

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