[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Problem

From: Jacques Menu
Subject: Re: Problem
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:49:35 +0200

An Mac .app bundle is self-contained, with everything it needs inside it. 
That’s why you can place anywhere in your files hierarchy and there can’t be 
conflicts with other applications, including other versions of the same .app. 

In particular, the LilyPond .app bundle contains the python version to be used 
with it:
jacquesmenu@macmini: ~ > ls -sal 
total 248
  0 drwxr-xr-x@  4 jacquesmenu  admin    128 Feb 12  2017 .
  0 drwxr-xr-x@ 18 jacquesmenu  admin    576 Jun 27  2017 ..
184 -rwxr-xr-x@  1 jacquesmenu  admin  92080 Feb 12  2017 LilyPond
 64 -rwxr-xr-x@  1 jacquesmenu  admin  29564 Feb 12  2017 python

I didn’t know, though, that moving it other that with the Finder (in the 
terminal with mv, for example) would raise issues in the recent, 64 bit only OS 

The LilyPond executable inside it can be launched thru its access path and used 
in Frescobaldi… provided it can run on the given architecture:

jacquesmenu@macmini: ~ > 
-bash: /Applications/ Bad 
CPU type in executable

I currently use this version, which is not part of any .app bundle:

jacquesmenu@macmini: ~ > type lilypond
lilypond is /opt/local/bin/lilypond

jacquesmenu@macmini: ~ > lilypond --version
GNU LilyPond 2.22.1

Copyright (c) 1996--2021 by
  Han-Wen Nienhuys <>
  Jan Nieuwenhuizen <>
  and others.

This program is free software.  It is covered by the GNU General Public
License and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it
under certain conditions.  Invoke as `lilypond --warranty' for more


> Le 2 août 2021 à 08:35, Jonas Hahnfeld via LilyPond user discussion 
> <> a écrit :
> Am Sonntag, dem 01.08.2021 um 20:53 +0000 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
>> On 8/1/21, 10:21 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Jonas Hahnfeld via 
>> Discussions on LilyPond development" 
>> < on behalf 
>> of> wrote:
>>> For me, personally, I'd prefer to see us follow up with either Marnen's or 
>>> Jaques's work (they may actually be very similar -- I'm not sure) so we can 
>>> get installable .app bundles, not just installed binaries.  Installable app 
>>> bundles make it very easy to use different versions of LilyPond in 
>>> Frescobaldi.
>>    Can you explain? Just extracting different versions of the binaries
>>    produced by the above system will work just fine. IIRC you only need to
>>    adjust the paths in Frescobaldi, right?
>> I suppose that I can have different name binaries in my bin folder, with a 
>> different name for each version.  As far as I know the binaries are 
>> generally installed to some folder other than Applications (I don't remember 
>> where it ended up when I tested it.
> Ok, would be interesting to know...
>> With the app bundle, I can rename the app bundle, and all of the necessary 
>> bin files are in each .app bundle.  I don't have to worry about what is the 
>> appropriate system path.  It's possible that it's no more difficult with 
>> your binaries, rather than the .app bundles.  It's just not my standard 
>> process.  GUB produces .app bundles, so that's what I'm used to using.
> You should be able to unpack the binaries to different directories, and
> use them in parallel as you wish.
>> The other thing that I thought tha .app bundles provided is built-in proper 
>> versions of all the necessary utilities, so I don't need to worry about 
>> clashes with improper versions of utilities.  I haven't actually run into 
>> any problems with clashes, but I also haven't tried multiple lilypond 
>> binaries with different names on my system -- I've just used different app 
>> bundles.
> I would claim it's even less error-prone with the way I'm proposing
> because everything is statically linked, so you can never run into the
> problem that one version of LilyPond finds a library from another
> version.
>> I'm an old dog, but not so old that I can't learn new tricks.  Maybe I just 
>> need to learn new tricks and your method is perfectly sufficient.  If so, 
>> please let me know.
> Feel free to try the current proof-of-concept, the overall idea of the
> approach has worked on all systems that I tested so far.
> Jonas
>> Thanks,
>> Carl

reply via email to

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