Re: Question: Cross compilation

[David Kastrup]

Chris Yate <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Phil,
>
> Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but that
> it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a
> better solution.

If you can find _any_ free software project requiring a number of free
software compile- and runtime dependencies that does not invest a really
big amount of time into maintaining a separate Windows port, you might
want to look how they are doing it.

But in my experience, stuff like Git are typical: the Windows port lags
several versions behind, is separately maintained with a lot of effort
by separate volunteers (who get rather gruff over time), and is of mixed
quality.

In contrast, the LilyPond Windows releases appear at the same time as
other releases and require no extra manual effort (until things go
wrong, of course).

That's pretty good, actually.  Not being able to do native/online
compilations by anybody wanting to is bad.  Yes.  Fixes to GUB (possibly
even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it
already) are of course welcome: we have pretty low active expertise on
its innards on the list, and those who use it for building releases
mostly drive on autopilot.

-- 
David Kastrup